| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
I just don't get it...
If I really don't agree with someone's radical ideas, I tend to stay away from them and not trust them. How is it that Obama surrounds himself with violent racists, bigots, anarchists, and tax cheats and still insists he is not of the same mold. Is he really a racist or is he just too weak to stand up and be kicked out of the "club"? -- Wafa free since 2009 |
I just don't get it...
JustWait wrote:
If I really don't agree with someone's radical ideas, I tend to stay away from them and not trust them. How is it that Obama surrounds himself with violent racists, bigots, anarchists, and tax cheats and still insists he is not of the same mold. Is he really a racist or is he just too weak to stand up and be kicked out of the "club"? I asked those questions about Bush and the answer I got was usually something about Clinton. |
I just don't get it...
|
I just don't get it...
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: If I really don't agree with someone's radical ideas, I tend to stay away from them and not trust them. How is it that Obama surrounds himself with violent racists, bigots, anarchists, and tax cheats and still insists he is not of the same mold. Is he really a racist or is he just too weak to stand up and be kicked out of the "club"? I asked those questions about Bush and the answer I got was usually something about Clinton. Really, I don't recall the folks surrounding Bush to be violent racists, Clinton either for that matter... Maybe they took assault rifles to a presidential town hall meeting?! |
I just don't get it...
"JustWait" wrote in message
... Uh, yeah... Still don't remember seeing that guy advising Bush, with a full access Oval Office pass and the Presidents' ear. But I guess your statement might have been relevant in some other conversation... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:18:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... Uh, yeah... Still don't remember seeing that guy advising Bush, with a full access Oval Office pass and the Presidents' ear. But I guess your statement might have been relevant in some other conversation... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. |
I just don't get it...
"jps" wrote in message
... On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:18:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... Uh, yeah... Still don't remember seeing that guy advising Bush, with a full access Oval Office pass and the Presidents' ear. But I guess your statement might have been relevant in some other conversation... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:00:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:18:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... Uh, yeah... Still don't remember seeing that guy advising Bush, with a full access Oval Office pass and the Presidents' ear. But I guess your statement might have been relevant in some other conversation... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. |
I just don't get it...
"jps" wrote in message
... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. I'm reading Blackwater right now.. truly shocking and only 30 minutes from DC. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:00:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. I'm reading Blackwater right now.. truly shocking and only 30 minutes from DC. Right wing Christian Muslim killers. It's Jesus vs. Mohammed, with guns. |
I just don't get it...
"jps" wrote in message
... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:00:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. I'm reading Blackwater right now.. truly shocking and only 30 minutes from DC. Right wing Christian Muslim killers. It's Jesus vs. Mohammed, with guns. I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 8, 4:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:00:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message . .. Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. I'm reading Blackwater right now.. truly shocking and only 30 minutes from DC. Right wing Christian Muslim killers. It's Jesus vs. Mohammed, with guns. I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. |
I just don't get it...
"Katie Ohara" wrote in message
... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
Katie Ohara wrote:
On Sep 8, 4:44 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:00:20 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... Bush definitely wasn't a racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dale_Guckert No, he just hated Muslims. Maybe he got confused with muslin. You know George.... Only if he confused Eric Prince with the Prince of Eqypt. I'm reading Blackwater right now.. truly shocking and only 30 minutes from DC. Right wing Christian Muslim killers. It's Jesus vs. Mohammed, with guns. I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. You apparently know nothing about Mohammed. On the other hand, you probably know nothing about Jesus, either. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 8, 5:52*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: *Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), *Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. *I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general "Muhammad as a general refers to one of the roles played by the Islamic prophet Muhammad as the leader of the ummah at Medina during the last ten years of his life." "Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated." Jesus would hardly approve. |
I just don't get it...
Jack wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general "Muhammad as a general refers to one of the roles played by the Islamic prophet Muhammad as the leader of the ummah at Medina during the last ten years of his life." "Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated." Jesus would hardly approve. I doubt jesus would approve of the horrors conducted in his name. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:17:00 -0400, H the K
wrote: Jack wrote: On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general "Muhammad as a general refers to one of the roles played by the Islamic prophet Muhammad as the leader of the ummah at Medina during the last ten years of his life." "Muhammad's critics often hold that the Muslims engaged in wars of aggression, that they caused much bloodshed and suffering, that they imposed Islam at the point of a sword, and that Muhammad's conduct is not an example to be imitated." Jesus would hardly approve. I doubt jesus would approve of the horrors conducted in his name. I'm quite certain he'd be horrified. |
I just don't get it...
Jack wrote:
I doubt jesus would approve of the horrors conducted in his name. His name is Jesus. Neither his mama nor his father nor anyone he knew called him "Jesus." "Jesus" was not his name. Yeshua, probably, was his real name. If memory serves, "jesus" isn't even a proper translation into greek of Yeshua. Further, whatever the name, "is" is the wrong very form. - - - Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 8, 9:00*pm, H the K wrote:
Jack wrote: I doubt jesus would approve of the horrors conducted in his name. His name is Jesus. Neither his mama nor his father nor anyone he knew called him "Jesus." "Jesus" was not his name. Yeshua, probably, was his real name. If memory serves, "jesus" isn't even a proper translation into greek of Yeshua. Further, whatever the name, "is" is the wrong very form. It's obvious you don't "know" him. |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 8, 10:15*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message .... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Thanks for the strawman. None of which, of course, disproves Mohammed was a warrior. The fact is, he was. What did you post the other day? Oh yeah, "a swing, and a miss!" ~snerk~ |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Thanks for the strawman. None of which, of course, disproves Mohammed was a warrior. The fact is, he was. It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:58:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Thanks for the strawman. None of which, of course, disproves Mohammed was a warrior. The fact is, he was. It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. Cocksure, Jack Goff is. |
I just don't get it...
Jack wrote:
On Sep 8, 9:00 pm, H the K wrote: Jack wrote: I doubt jesus would approve of the horrors conducted in his name. His name is Jesus. Neither his mama nor his father nor anyone he knew called him "Jesus." "Jesus" was not his name. Yeshua, probably, was his real name. If memory serves, "jesus" isn't even a proper translation into greek of Yeshua. Further, whatever the name, "is" is the wrong very form. It's obvious you don't "know" him. Neither do you, jackoff. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
jps wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:58:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Thanks for the strawman. None of which, of course, disproves Mohammed was a warrior. The fact is, he was. It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. Cocksure, Jack Goff is. Jackoff claims to be a "christian." Jesus wouldn't agree. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 9, 12:58*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Thanks for the strawman. *None of which, of course, disproves Mohammed was a warrior. *The fact is, he was. It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling one off yourself. Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek. You do seem to be full of a lot of "opinion". |
I just don't get it...
Jack wrote:
You do seem to be full of a lot of "opinion". And you seem to be full of racism, mean-spiritedness, and, of course, bull****. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
I just don't get it...
"jps" wrote in message
... It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. Cocksure, Jack Goff is. Yoda? -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling one off yourself. Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here. Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek. And he did this because?? Read it again and let us know when you have the answer. You do seem to be full of a lot of "opinion". You seem to be rude for no reason I can fathom. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 9, 1:58*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume Take a look in the mirror, nom. *Those were *your* words, bounced right back at you. *If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling one off yourself. Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here. Strawman, and a swing and a miss. The rest was just someone (me) refuting your opinion with links. If any of that is what you consider an attack, you may not be cut out for usenet. Just my opinion. Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. *A general, a warrior, a warlord. *He sure didn't turn the other cheek. And he did this because?? Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus. You remember this? Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. You posted: Completely untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Well, your link, and the one I provided, shows your opinion to be false. Read up on this a bit, and get back to us when you understand. |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 8, 10:15*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message .... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Strawman. What Muslims believe have nothing to do with who Mohammed was. Oh wait, yes it does. They beleive that he was a general who conquered an entire region with violence. Does that action follow the teachings of Jesus? You evidently don't think so, since you believe Jesus wouldn't have approved of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 9, 1:58 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling one off yourself. Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here. Strawman You refuse to post my supposed attack. Thus, you weren't truthful when you said I attacked you. Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek. And he did this because?? Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus. Or, because he was under threat. Read it again. You remember this? Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. You posted: ?Completely untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Well, your link, and the one I provided, shows your opinion to be false. Read up on this a bit, and get back to us when you understand. We was not bloodthirsty and even his followers think so much of Jesus that they prepared a grave for him next to their honored dead. Not sure what's so hard to understand about this, unless of course you mistakenly believe that Islam )and its followers) is a violent religion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Katie Ohara" wrote in message ... I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends. -- Nom=de=Plume Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye. Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general Jesus would hardly approve. 1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Now, answer the same question about the Crusades. 2) From the link I provided: Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus. Does that action follow the teachings of Jesus? You evidently don't think so, since you believe Jesus wouldn't have approved of the Crusades or any other violence by Christains. Thus, Christians are just as bloodthirsty as Muslims. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 9, 2:48*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 1:58 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have a different opinion. -- Nom=de=Plume Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling one off yourself. Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here. Strawman You refuse to post my supposed attack. Thus, you weren't truthful when you said I attacked you. I posted the words, that's what you asked for. Your logic is failing you. Why did you cut "swing and a miss", which were your words? Are you trying to be untruthful? Mybe you should spell out *my* supposed attack, since we obviously have a different concept of what that means. Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek. And he did this because?? Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus. Or, because he was under threat. Read it again. Are you stating that Jesus was never under threat? That he never had a reason to lash out in violence? Jesus chose not to, because he didn't believe in violence. Mohammed, not so much. We was not bloodthirsty and even his followers think so much of Jesus that they prepared a grave for him next to their honored dead. Not sure what's so hard to understand about this, unless of course you mistakenly believe that Islam )and its followers) is a violent religion. That card won't play. The issue at hand is not if the religion and its followers are violent, but if Mohammed was a warlord. History... Islam's own history... shows him to be so. He spent ten years killing in the name of Islam. Do you believe that killing was justified? Is there justifiable killing other than sef-defense? How about when you travel great distances, seek out villages and attack and kill them, because they aren't of the same religion as you? Is that OK? |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 9, 3:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you. |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you. Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence? Hardly. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
On Sep 9, 4:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message .... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Then you just proved my original point as being correct. *Thank you. Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence? You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions. Do you really want to continue this discussion? Especially now that you have agreed with my viewpoints? |
I just don't get it...
"Jack" wrote in message
... On Sep 9, 4:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you. Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence? You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions. He was not particularly violent. I stand by my previous comments. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they would be enemies. Do you really want to continue this discussion? Especially now that you have agreed with my viewpoints? You seem to have the need. -- Nom=de=Plume |
I just don't get it...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 4:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Jack" wrote in message ... On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his army? Of course not. Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you. Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence? You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions. He was not particularly violent. I stand by my previous comments. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they would be enemies. Nom=de=Plume Non violent? He was wounded a couple times and was in a bunch of major battles. Mohammidism would not be big today if his armies had not conquered most of Europe. He was knocking on the door to Paris when he was forced back to the African continent. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com