Muslims in the Military

The Washington Times ^ | September 25, 2003 | Editorial

[winker]

Don't bet the farm on that!

[mathurine]

and minesweepers. There a lot of Islamic -laid mines in Islamic countries that need removing, and who better to do it? They know the culture and the language, which would be valuable in finding the mines; or not. Happy ending either way.

[livius]

Bad ideas can kill just as much as bad diseases, and Islam is both.

Agreed!

[Technogeeb]

Leave me alone. Isn't it Friday? Have a drink. Get laid. Lock yourself in your Panic room. Whatever you do to unwind, do it. You are incredibly aggressive and overbearing. Being 'right' means nothing if people tune you out. All I'm hearing from you right now is white noise...

If you weren't reading, then you wouldn't be replying. You may be trying to "tune me out", but you're not doing a particularly good job at it. And once again, what you have posted above is irrelevant to the discussion, and a futile attempt to change the subject.

I am "incredibly agressive and overbearing" against those who blindly support Islam because Islam wants to murder me ("slay the infidels wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush", as Sura 9:5 says, or "Seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper", as Sura 4:89 says; similar quotes demanding murder of those who refuse Islam can be found throughout the Quran).

It is perfectly rational to be "incredibly aggressive and overbearing" when someone is supporting an ideology that wants to kill me or enslave me, and that is what you are doing, either through your ignorance of Islam or through al-taqiyah (mentioning the latter since the premise of the former seems both unlikely and surreal in a post 9-11 world; even with the ignorance you have displayed in previous posts it seems unlikely that you could be that uninformed).

[Technogeeb]

You're just as zealous as they are.

Zealotry in self-defense is not a vice.

Don't you get it? Its not a discussion anymore.

No; you're just trying to not make it a discussion. If you don't want to press the issue, you can walk away and ignore the subject. But you will not be allowed to dominate the subject of conversation by doing the electronic equivalent of putting your hands on your ears and whining.

I dont give a s%#@@ what you have to say.

If that were true, then you wouldn't be reading.

You're pushing me the other way.

Since you started out at one of the extremes in favor of tolerance of Islam, then that can only be a good thing.

You're shouting in people's faces does about as good as the drunk crazy man on the corner of the street screaming how we're all going to hell.

I am not shouting in people's faces; I am simply denying you the power to make ad hominem attacks unanswered. For the sake of this discussion, the probability that you're "going to hell" isn't relevant to the conversation. Regardless of the fact that the point of discussion is Islam, the argument against Islam has nothing to do with differences of theological beliefs. The reason we hate Islam isn't that Islam is a different belief structure, it is because Islam is a different belief structure that insists that all other belief structures must be destroyed, using physical violence including our murder, and demands that its followers strive to achieve that goal.

To fail to resist the advocacy of such bad ideas is irrational, and it is that irrationality which you are trying in vain to assert. When your attempts at argumentum ad ignorantiam failed you resorted to argumentum ad hominem. You are free to offer such fallacious arguments, but such assertions will not go unanswered.