Yet another anti-Islam thread

Although not quite, at what point does home grown terroism become revolution?

Next.

Assuming the majority of people here might agree that Islam and its people are quite a bit behind, in many things both in moral sense and in a technologicalsense than the christian/judaism societies, can we really afford to leave them behind?

I mean if we have two choices as far as I can see;

We accept their evolutionay place, as we would our ape bretheron and take our needs above theirs,

or

as we seem to have decided witout my knowledge, accept them and their beliefs as equal to our own in the hopes our society becomes an evolutionary factor in their development.

Given the latter, should we accept their equal statis oppointed by us on them to be a voluntary evolutionary constraint on our own development?

We are only as strong as our weakest link, we can either help them or burn down their habitat as is our right of the dominent species........ to insure life continues of course. If not for the resorces we can't have them develope the atom bomb of their own accord without attempting to instill a sense of morality similair to our own.

When we are finshed their we could kill people who can't comprehend certain mathematical equations I guess.

We play a dangerous game with our one attempt at this world in my opinion, I suppose it's better to die trying to help the less developed than to...... insure life on this planet?!?... wait nuke those sons'o'b****es and take their oil.

edit: technological sense and resources.


How many other errors can you spot, whilst staying on point.

also without.

I also inferred speciaction, can humans interbreed with any other species? suppose that might require another topic. Also that inference was so wrong, I would actually like to know of some method we could use to help the arab people lest we let them destroy us/we destroy them.

by victory. The utter and absolute annihilation of the adversary.

And not to be mean, but why do you have so many spelling/grammatical errors? It seems like you wrote your post too fast to spell/grammar check

I never turn spellcheck on because it's for girls and I am a MAN, I am also using a new laptop and am a bit drunk. Also it being a new laptop I don't know how to turn on the spellcheck and the keyboard is a different layout........... that seems like a valid ammount of excuses/error ratio right?

yup. Valid enough for me. Drunk alone would have been sufficient

So you think we should just excert our postition and kill them, I would assume given you previous posts you would give them the first shot........ being a sporting man.

Maybe when we are finished we could search the galaxy for any than might pose a threat...... so we could kill them too naturally. Where is the cut off point? are these people beyond saving? or are we not advanced enough to save them?, yet we could claim the right to kill them

No, I was merely answering your question of when terrorism turns into a revolution. Its effectively a retrospective conversion stated upon a finality of victory. If the initial force of uprising destroys the status quo and retains victory unto a stable government, the initial "terrorists" will be declared revolutionaries instead of terrorists. If, however, they fail and the initial government crushes the uprising, the initial "revolutionaries" will have been declared terrorists and remain that way in the annals of history.

History is written by the victors, and by extension, definitions as well



My personal opinion is to figure out whether the individuals can be converted to any useful tool of society. If not, are they at least neutral. If they are negative and remain a threat, and cannot be neutralized or converted, then annihilate them.

As Lincoln insinuated, "destroy your enemies by making friends of them" however, if this cannot be done, a bullet will have to suffice

i definatlee agree whe shot kill the bad math folx befure the bad spellirs

a mixing pot has room on the sides for those afraid of the middle.

OK, you have Lincoln quotes memorised?

Every situation differs but did Lincoln say anything that may be pertaining to our situation as it is?

At what point do we say you (muslims, and I hate to be so bleak about the situation) have oil and are so less developed than us, given our need for this resource (oil) and postition as the most advanced peoples on this earth we shall take it.

The fact is we haven't, and we don't seem to want to accept our position within an evolutionary contruct. We have advanced to top and evolution dictates we advance, as we have, at the expense of others. Be it plant or animal or etc.

Yet we seem to have takin a stance, with our endless egotism, that we are beyond this evolutionary contstruct and that we can extend a sense of inclusion to everything else. It's admirable, but fullhearty............... considering everything else is in direct competition with us for resources.

Muslims may not be a direct conflict of species, but they provide a direct conflict to the moral inclusive stance we have adopted that ironically also dictates their inclusion and rights. Too fight back is to fail, the only option is to help them was my point.

Does this make sense?