“Also look out for a major shift from extreme depression to an overall sense of calm. This indicates that the victim may have found peace and comfort in a decision to kill him- or herself and needs to be dealt with before following through with it. While variables always inevitably creep in, the aforementioned red flags generally point towards disconcerting behavior that must be addressed before it becomes too late.”

Actually no I don’t know “that there are subtle differences in the precise wording of the translation”. According to posts you’ve written in previous articles, there is no room for interpretation in the Koran. I happen to disagree but you have stated repeatedly that you don’t. You’re contradicting yourself again. So what translation specifically are you using? Or more precisely, what website are you cutting and pasting your ‘opinions’ from? I’m very certain you haven’t actually read the Koran. You’ve made certain grammatical errors in your ‘quotes’ that are identical to ones I’ve read from other posters.

On your repeated attempts at moral equivalency, I’ve already pointed out that the actions described in the Bible about Abraham are very similar to Muhammad. Rape, slavery, theft, murder, and terrorism are all depicted in the Bible. Unlike you, I think both the Bible and the Koran are allegorical. Thus your position that Islam is responsible for creating terrorism (unless your beliefs are based on bigotry and hatred) is completely disingenuous unless you also believe that Christianity is responsible for terrorism as well. Religion is not responsible for creating terrorism. Evil men are. Which is why when 15% of American ‘Christians’(circa 1920’s) were members of the terrorist organization the KKK the other 85% of American Christians didn’t need to renounce Abraham and the Bible in order to right the wrongs of the KKK. Likewise the 99% of Muslims that are peaceful don’t need to renounce anything except terrorism and the dictatorships that most of them live in.

Look most people don’t like to be proven wrong. Most people don’t like to be shown that their ignorant. And most people don’t like to be caught lying. I’ve clearly demonstrated that all three apply to you. If you’d like to change those things, try reading the Koran so that you can have an intelligent debate with someone about the religion of Islam.

Please ignore “Mr. Independant” (aka “Ben Grimm/The Thing”). He’s a babbling moron with delusions of eloquence, a pied piper philosoph with a broken flute, a true Egyptian who loves “de-nial”.

~ The Infidel Alliance

And you were making such progress. Oh well. In response to your post #168 I have the following questions that you still have not answered:

1) Where in the Bible is it written that only clergy can convert someone to Christianity?
2) Are you standing by your statement in post #157 “Where? Can you quote? Can you understand English?” that you have not compared Muslims (without conditions) to Nazis?
3) On your beliefs about the cause of terrorism; if you believe islamic-terrorism is caused by Islam, then what was the cause of christian-terrorism?
4) Your comment suggesting (post #168) that most islamic-terrorists do not come from dictatorships didn’t make sense. What did you mean by that statement specifically?
5) If religion is the root cause of terrorism; how do you explain the fact that the majority of terrorism is narco-terrorism?
6) What elementary textbook states “that Europe had separation to religious and secular rulers”?
7) Do you now accept that the Catholic Church (i.e. the majority of all Christians) does in fact combine the secular and the spiritual?

Try to understand that these questions are not meant to embarrass you but to educate you. Almost every single assertion you made I’ve disproved with your own contradictions and credible evidence (which does not include the Wikipedia). You’ve claimed that I’ve been dishonest with my posts but have not pointed out one specific point I’ve made that is false; not one. Your opinions are just opinions, not facts. You write in circles about any topic that disproves your opinions. First about Cortez, then the KKK, then the Pope, and many other items as well.

If you read my posts you’ll see I don’t apologize for anything. Unlike you and others (like Iasius) I do not think that Christianity created the KKK or that Islam created Al-Qaeda. I think evil men created those terrorist organizations. I only compare them to debunk your (apparent) theory that Islam is the root cause of terrorism. I’m very interested in having an honest debate on how best to defeat terrorism. I think that should include killing the actual terrorists and undermining the countries that support them by spreading democracy and capitalism. You’re only stated solution has been to blame 1.5 Billion people; 99 percent of whom are peaceful. That enables terrorism. You should ask yourself; do you really want to help Al-Qaeda?

Don’t be a moron.

Concerning Koran 33:21, you know as well as I that there are subtle differences in the precise wording of the translation. It is the meaning that is important. If the verse says “a beautiful model” or “beautiful pattern” is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the Koran thinks this sadistic raping, enslaving, stealing, murdering, terrorist butcher is some kind of ‘holy’ man, a role model to be emulated.

Face it, by any objective standard, Muhammed was a vile pig. Koran 33:21 should say: “In Muhammed you have an horrible model of conduct, and you should use this man as a prime example of how NOT to live your life.”

“Mr. Independant”, I have not “constantly refused to condemn modern terrorism and have constantly made excuses for the terrorism of organizations like the KKK.” Each and every one of my posts deals directly with the root cause of modern terrorism – Muhammed and his Jihadist cult of Islam.

To be clear, the KKK is a repulsive organization who I stand firmly against, but the KKKlanists are not the ones perpetrating ‘modern terrorism’. Nor are the “Abrahamists”, the Buddhist Liberation Front, the Lutheran Suicide Bombers, or the Baptist Jihad Brigades.

It’s THE ISLAMISTS YOU MORON! And MUHAMMED is their leader, inspiration, moral compass and commander in chief.

ITS THE ISLAMISTS……I-S-L-A-M-I-S-T-S……ISLAMISTS!!!

And the ISLAMISTS are engaged in THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR.

Burning on every continent except Antarctica.
Against everyone and everything non-Islamic.

Allah is the inspiration.
The Koran is the war manual.
Muhammed is the supreme commander.
Bin Laden & al Zawahiri are the generals.
The Clerics are the colonels.
The Minarets are the watchtowers.
The Mosque is the command post.
The Muslim is the Soldier of Allah (SoA – like “good American Muslim” Major Nidal Hassan M.D.).
The campaign is Jihad.
The command is to convert, subjugate or kill the ‘infidel’.
The objective is dar al-Harb.
The reward is flowing wine and gluttious promiscuity with 72 black eyed houris in 7th heaven.

Israel. Africa. Europe. India. Russia. China. Thailand. The Philippines. Australia. North America. South America.

THE ISLAMIC WORLD WAR

Get it, “Mr. Independant”??

Best regards, your pal in peace,

~The “so called” Infidel Alliance

P.S. – You misspelled “independent”, but perhaps this was just you expressing your “independance”.

http://bikyamasr.com/?p=6144

Well I see you’re still interested in blaming long dead religious figures instead of terrorists. Anyway, I asked in a previous article if you have ever read the Koran. You stated that you had and that you in fact have two copies. I thought that was strange at the time but now that comment makes more sense. You were lying. You’ve never read the Koran. You’re just cutting and pasting someone else’s opinion. In post #165 you wrote “The Koran 33:21 states “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]”. That’s not what that verse states. And that is an identical mistake I’ve seen other posters on this site make. TIA you don’t know what you’re writing about.

Let’s set you ignorance about the Koran aside for a moment. You have constantly refused to condemn modern terrorism and have constantly made excuses for the terrorism of organizations like the KKK. Why? You have also made it a point to condemn to metaphorical descriptions of Muhammad but refused to do the same for Abraham? Why? Is it bigotry? I can’t think of any other reason.
TIA your ignorance and bigotry has just been exposed. You are a fraud.

How can the IDENTICAL prescription of unquestionable, unchangeable physical laws, fabricated at the beginning of the Universe, be justly expected to fit every human being in every time and clime?

You are free to violate physical laws and time-tested ethical rules. The outcome will be similar.

The pope speaks about “faith and reason.” Funding fathers of the United States were mostly enlightened deists (read agnostics), but they still couldn’t proclaim human rights without invoking higher powers. Stalin did not invoke any God-given rights and created Gulags (Enlightened state-given rights).

>It MAY be so based IF AND ONLY IF it does not conflict with >current societal norms determined ONLY through secular >discourse.

Yeah. Shifting sands. In the 60-ties one of the popes proclaimed that contraception would not reduce abortions, instead it would increase their numbers, would destabilize marriage, would lead to explosion of venereal diseases, depopulation and finally to eutanasia (indeed, abortions exploded, sexual revolution brought AIDS and other plagues, such as herpes and papiloma virus which were linked to cancers.

Yet, the “secular discourse” ridiculed the pope to the extreme, especially the notion of abortion, depopulation and eutanasia. Women were supposed to have control, and depopulation was to be remedied by immigrants from other countries (Europeans brought in North Africans, Pakistani and Turks). Now they explain away that terrorist threat in Europe has nothing to do with that import or sexual revolution.

Even recently there was a massive secular hysteria about condoms in Africa when B16 stated that they aggravate the problem. Even after Harvard expert supported this view with scientific data, the hysteria continues.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece

And it goes on. Some institutions such as monogamous marriage were established by natural selection over thousands of years. It was all about procreation. Sexual revolution decoupled sex from procreation, and marriage became meaningless. Now marriage between a man and a woman is attacked as a “religious superstition”. I can go on and on and on. Not all religious rules are off. Secular discourse can be off by light years if it rejects the wisdom of millenia and before the fruits (man-made disasters) are seen.

>Yes indeed. But the period within which the outcome is known >with 100% certainty is finite – often just a few generations >at most.

Indeed, it took only 2 generations to bring Europe to the brink of disaster. I am not even sure if it can be avoided as the childless baby-boom generation continues to age. Inclusion of countries less affected by the sixties (Eastern Europe) may bring a temporary relief. Inclusion of Turkey may completely change the dynamics.

>However, it is stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquistador that “The stated purposes of these conquests were to equally spread the word of God and to bring this new civilization in the most obscure parts of the world into the Spanish Crown as dutiful vassals …”

The neutrality of the wikipedia article is disputed. Besides, there are facts: Cortez went to the Aztec land without permission. He was a convicted felon and nobody gave him any mission. Yes, later priests came to reduce hostility of the conquered populations.

>Pure science might not be able to guide ethics, but social sciences are very well equipped to lend more than a helping hand. In any case, they are far more wholesome than superannuated values that instilled by faith.

Social sciences are not considered sciences but fall into a category of “arts and humanities”. Interestingly, they are often dominated in Academia by left leaning ideologues. One interesting phrase I heard at Yale, from an ethnic studies department goes like this: “the worst kind of human being is a white heterosexual man”. That would summarize the current state of confusion in humanities. If you want a guide of Princeton ethicist, Peter Singer, he stated that chicken has more right to live that a newborn human being, because it is more independent. He also advocated the right of parents to kill newborns. A new religion of “reason” is ready to replace the existing “superstition” which prohibits such killing.

>yet the point I am making is that anyone who relies on the >degree of absurdity for his beliefs needs to have a second >opinion.

Absolutely. Faith and reason balancing each other.