Posted by maypost Thank you for proving my point <3

Once again, short on substance, big on misrepresentation. Do you ever have anything constructive to add?

You might have some valid points, but who would ever know?

Posted by maypost Please tell me you are kidding. So saying they are a curse on the world or that they are a threat to the world

Again you misrepresent. Nowhere did I say this. Do you need me to use smaller words?

Posted by tekriter What if the jews said the same about the nazis?

It's probably more akin to what the Nazis said about the Jews, but of course, you only said that Islam was a threat to world peace, not that they were racially inferior, etc.

Posted by splumer It's probably more akin to what the Nazis said about the Jews, but of course, you only said that Islam was a threat to world peace, not that they were racially inferior, etc.

True. Islam, the set of ideas and practices, specifically the interpretations that support violence (the logical interpretation, very much like fascism) is a threat to world peace, in the exact same way that nazism was (and history shows this to be a fact) a threat to world peace. Many jews said this in the late thirties. Bigots all?

I'd love to hear maypost's response to this. But my guess is he won't answer or will not condone this.


Turns out the moral landscape where you proclaim yourself to be on the highground is more complicated that you would have us believe.

Bueller? Bueller?


If you are correct (still haven't answered my question) can you explain this passage from the Hadith, and how it is consistent with living together in peace and harmony?


"Jiahd is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked.

A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's Cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.

A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer

Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again ( in Allah's Cause.)

He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.

Paradise is in the shadow of swords."



You might well argue that we are misunderstanding the text, but you would just be wrong:

The number of islamist organizations that quote this passage is innumerable. And even if they all misunderstand mohammed's intent - it is still a problem of epic airport security proportions.

That or the people that ordered airport screening are all bigots.

"Jihad" (ǧihād جهاد) is an Arabic word which comes from the Arabic root word "jahada"; which means "exerting utmost effort" or "to strive." The word connotes a wide range of meanings, from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to holy war.

During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad referred essentially to nonviolent and personal struggle.

Posted by MutantMandias "Jihad" (ǧihād جهاد) is an Arabic word which comes from the Arabic root word "jahada"; which means "exerting utmost effort" or "to strive." The word connotes a wide range of meanings, from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to holy war. During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad referred essentially to nonviolent and personal struggle.

Whose definition is this?

It is certainly not consistent with thier texts.

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. If they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reign's supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evildoers"

Slay. Drive them out. Put them to the sword. Fight. Seems kinda violent to me - and apparently to many other followers.

Koran 2:190-193


Nor with their actions: Consider the riots and killings that followed the publishing of cartoons.


But as I pointed out before - even if it was meant to mean something different, it no longer does to many people. The fact that it is not evidence based and is open to interpretation is in itself a major problem.






Were the nazis a threat to world peace or were the jews bigots?

Posted by tekriter I'd love to hear maypost's response to this. But my guess is he won't answer or will not condone this.

My response is that you are ill-informed.

I refuse to have a rational discussion with people who make generalizations about entire populations of people.

You're a prejudiced man, and I think that's too bad. So go ahead and crack wise all you want. You are still the one spreading hate... plain and simple.

Posted by tekriter What if the jews said the same about the nazis?

They would be wrong.

Posted by maypost My response is that you are ill-informed. I refuse to have a rational discussion with people who make generalizations about entire populations of people. You're a prejudiced man, and I think that's too bad. So go ahead and crack wise all you want. You are still the one spreading hate... plain and simple.

still not an answer - still have not read what I wrote.

Posted by Soldat They would be wrong.

I'm not sure the facts support your assertion.

As evidence to the contrary I submit WWII. Heard of it?

Posted by maypost My response is that you are ill-informed. I refuse to have a rational discussion with people who make generalizations about entire populations of people. You're a prejudiced man, and I think that's too bad. So go ahead and crack wise all you want. You are still the one spreading hate... plain and simple.

oh, and you still have a racist sigline.

Posted by tekriter oh, and you still have a racist sigline.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

So, no, I'll pass on dignifying you with an explanation

Posted by tekriter I'm not sure the facts support your assertion. As evidence to the contrary I submit WWII. Heard of it?

We have already establish you have no real idea how things were during WWII.

So you submit that every German, or even just everybody who was a member of the Nazi party was a bigoted, jew gassing, holocaust loving, jack boot marching SS man?

Nobody did the horrible stuff because they were ordered too? Nobody was drafted into the military? Nobody joined the nazi party in order to make their life easier?

I submit the multiple Germans in WWII who tried to kill Hitler.

If you can't understand that then you sir are a fucking retard.

Posted by maypost As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. So, no, I'll pass on dignifying you with an explanation

The fact is you are dead wrong and got caught in your own trap and you have nothing of substance to reply with - so you try to change the subject and keep repeating the same non answers over and over again.

Posted by Soldat We have already establish you have no real idea how things were during WWII.

No. I have read and appear to understand more than you do. This is in no way an agreed fact.

Posted by Soldat So you submit that every German, or even just everybody who was a member of the Nazi party was a bigoted, jew gassing, holocaust loving, jack boot marching SS man?

This is further misrepresentation. I have said nothing of the sort.

Do you submit that the platform of the nazi party was consistent with peace and harmony?

You clearly agree with their ideas - or would this be misrepresenting what you said?

Posted by Soldat Nobody did the horrible stuff because they were ordered too? Nobody was drafted into the military? Nobody joined the nazi party in order to make their life easier?

Sure, himmler, you were just following orders. Your ideas are an example of the reason that the uS needs to reinvest in public education.

Posted by Soldat I submit the multiple Germans in WWII who tried to kill Hitler.

Yeah, and no one remembers all the good things hitler did....

Posted by Soldat If you can't understand that then you sir are a fucking retard.

Again, your last refuge - agree with me or I'll call you names. Sound a little nazi to say the least.

I have read more books on WWII than you likely have ever laid eyes on. World War Two Germany and the Eastern Front is the topic I have read the most about. I know more about WWII than you. I know more about Germany than you. I know more about the Nazis than you. I know this to be a fact because I know far more about WWII than most people on this plant and through your previous wrong statements it is obvious you fall into the "most" category.

Himmler? Really? Himmler did the Holocaust? All by himself? Okay.

You are talking out of your ass. Stop it.

Actually I was being sarcastic and calling you himmler.

You might recall, being the world's foremost WWII historian that many nazis at the Nuremburg tribunals tried to use the defense of just following orders.

But of course it seemed to slip your mind that following orders does not absolve one of moral responsibility and as such is not a valid defence.

As super smart as you tell us that you are, your replies seem heavy on name calling and light on facts or critical analysis. The fact is it was eichman - but you knew that.



How about we try this one on:

Supposing I conceded your point and found myself to be a big ol bigot.

How would I have gotten that way? Do you suppose you are saying that believing things without adequate evidence is dangerous?

Supposing my private belief that islam (further assuming that you are not "talking out of your ass" and we -for the moment - agree that there is no evidence to support this) is a danger affected my public actions - like suggesting it on the internet.

Further suppose that you are right and the nazis were good folks forced to do bad things and the church is blameless and morally incorruptible - then your argument is that my beliefs about the third reich are unfounded.

So there you sit on, what you suppose, is a high horse demanding MORE EVIDENCE for what you assert is my unfounded claim.




>>>>>>>This is the important bit!<<<<<<<<<<



I'm sure by now you have figured out where all this is going, but given your inability to reason through arguments I'll spell it out in all its agonizing detail for you:

You have just proved my central claim that unreasonable beliefs are dangerous.

Now back to Islam and the nazis.

My views on Islam are well founded and supported by international events and the texts of islam itself. I don't know how many times I need to spell it out for you, but just like you have been saying about me:

I DISAGREE WITH THE CENTRAL IDEAS OF ISLAM AND THE UNFOUNDED BELIEFS THAT LEAD TO VIOLENCE AND HATRED. (I apply the same criteria to christianity or any other unfounded belief system that sets people apart). I respect all people but refuse to respect unfounded beliefs in any form.

There is NO bigotry in pointing that out, nor the danger it poses to civil society.


The nazis founded a movement that in many ways was like a religion. Hitler was catholic and believed he was sent by god. He also had many very catholic ideas. The catholic church was alternatively complicit or had its head in the sand the entire time. The holocaust had much to do with religion - but you won't admit that because it calls into question your foundational beliefs.


The fascists were very much like islamists. I have lived in several islamist countries (and I read more books on islam and know more about islam than any man alive! I can't even type this with a straight face) and the concepts of superiority and the state dictating what people should believe and how they should behave are very nearly identical to nazi germany. Read up on the taliban when you can tear yourself away from WWII.

Posted by tekriter You might recall, being the world's foremost WWII historian that many nazis at the Nuremburg tribunals tried to use the defense of just following orders. But of course it seemed to slip your mind that following orders does not absolve one of moral responsibility and as such is not a valid defence.

They did and it is realistically a valid defense for low ranking soldiers. I mean really, the options are you do it or you get executed or a court martial. After being brainwashed your entire youth that the people your being told to kill are subhuman and like animals it becomes easier still. Again, context.

Furthermore in the US Army Field Manual for most of the war is told soldiers that if they followed orders which are later decided to be war crimes they are not responsible as they were just following orders. It was not till '44 or so they changed it to make the "duty to disobey unlawful orders" rule.

The defense is not without its merits.

Nuremburg was a trial on the losers by the winners. Thats why you have German generals being tried for bombing cities as a war crime while ignoring the fact all the allies did the same thing.

Posted by tekriter As super smart as you tell us that you are, your replies seem heavy on name calling and light on facts or critical analysis. The fact is it was eichman - but you knew that.

No, there are actually plenty of facts while your statements on WWII Germany are pretty much common false beliefs about it. And it was Eichmann? You just gave a passing reference to Himmler, not "Sure Himmler, high level SS officer who is considered the chief organizer of the holocaust". Himmer was the SS Reichsfuhrer, why would I not assume you meant him?

Posted by tekriter So there you sit on, what you suppose, is a high horse demanding MORE EVIDENCE for what you assert is my unfounded claim.

No, I just hate seeing history butchered.

Posted by tekriter You have just proved my central claim that unreasonable beliefs are dangerous.

Yes, but you harp on the religious part while the Nazism is decidedly secular. Also, the notion of what is and is no reasonable is completely objective and dependent on the individual and the social norms of the period. In 1917 Eugenics were perfectly reasonable. The ides jews were inferior was perfectly reasonable to many Germans in WWII, after all, it was proven by science.

Posted by tekriter The nazis founded a movement that in many ways was like a religion.

Yes it was a uniting force that got peoples hearts, souls, and undying blind loyalty like a religion can do, but that can be said of any nationalist movement really.

Posted by tekriter Hitler was catholic and believed he was sent by god. He also had many very catholic ideas.

By all accounts while Hitler did use religion and had some religion he was far from a Catholic. As I said, he did not like or trust organized religion. This is well documented

Posted by tekriter The catholic church was alternatively complicit or had its head in the sand the entire time.

If saving hundreds of thousands of Jews and sheltering more in the Vatican's basement itself is being complicit or having its head in the sand, I suppose.

Posted by tekriter The holocaust had much to do with religion - but you won't admit that because it calls into question your foundational beliefs.

It had some religion to it but it had far more to do with old fasnined anti-semitism, the idea of a pure race, eugenics, and primarily with the need to create an out group in order to unify Germany. Nothing draws people together like a common enemy. That was the key factor in the Holocaust.

Posted by tekriter Read up on the taliban when you can tear yourself away from WWII.

I have and currently do as I and them will be trying to kill each other in person fairly soon.

Posted by Soldat The defense is not without its merits.

Uh...okay himmer.

Posted by Soldat No, I just hate seeing history butchered.

But people are okay?

Posted by Soldat The ides jews were inferior was perfectly reasonable to many Germans in WWII, after all, it was proven by science.

Wow. You sure you are not just a little bit nazi? And by science do you mean the same "scienc" as intelligent design?

Posted by Soldat Yes it was a uniting force that got peoples hearts, souls, and undying blind loyalty like a religion can do, but that can be said of any nationalist movement really.

I agree to a point. I've witnessed this up close all over the world and blind faith in something has a whole lot do with it.

Posted by Soldat By all accounts while Hitler did use religion and had some religion he was far from a Catholic. As I said, he did not like or trust organized religion. This is well documented

Mo, not all accounts. He gave mixed messages, referred to god all the time, dabbled in the occult...This is well documented.

Posted by Soldat If saving hundreds of thousands of Jews and sheltering more in the Vatican's basement itself is being complicit or having its head in the sand, I suppose.

Still never excommunicated a single catholic nazi. Never spoke out agisnt it. For an organization that claims to be billions of people's moral compass they had a higher standard of duty to say something. More often than not, they sat silent or actually helped out.

Posted by Soldat It had some religion to it but it had far more to do with old fasnined anti-semitism, the idea of a pure race, eugenics, and primarily with the need to create an out group in order to unify Germany. Nothing draws people together like a common enemy. That was the key factor in the Holocaust.

I think religion had more to do with it than you - but at the end of the day it was about unreasonable ideas and not enough people demanding good evidence.

Posted by Soldat I have and currently do as I and them will be trying to kill each other in person fairly soon.

Funny you mention brainwashing. See if you can talk to some taliban prisoners.

Islamozombies is the best world I've heard so far. Sadly it fits perfectly. They are perfectly willing to kill you and everyone you know for unfounded ideas about the nature of the universe.


BTW, look at my location. If you need some tips....