Islam Threatens The Free World

[fortminor]

Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

Men like Ali and Mohammed are from the same mold as Saddam Hussein. One minute they are talking fatherly to children and the next, they amputating limbs and executing prisoners.

source please !

[fortminor]

Tell me what happened to a people who decided to leave Islam?

My aunt married to a Muslim guy, so I quite know the religion myself. And I know what happened to him when he decided to leave Islam.

You can quote any verse in the Koran to prove your point; however, people in your religion practice it otherwise. Or I dare to say you only quote half of it.

If your Aunt's husband is a muslim ,I live in an Islamic country! and I have never seen anybody who is killed because of changing his/her religion.

it is a tradition between some petrified and bigoted people who name themselves as Muslims ! and as far as i know between Jews .

[Danyet]

Listen, if you unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts. But at least some of them have the excuse that their english is not up to scratch. You don't!

If you bothered to explore my links a little you would have found some more links in Arabic.

[Admiral]

Listen, if you (fortminor) unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts.

http://www.wahrheitssuche.org/mohammed.html

Not many guys are prepared to read your links if they read something like this

So you reject the writings of Aisha who claims to have been molested by Mohammed when she was 6 or 9 years old and embrace the writings of Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

in your posts.

After a single google search about Aisha, I found the following sentences:

Aisha is the youngest of the women of Muhammed and the only one who married as virgin... Muhammed knows Aisha from the childhood and her intelligence and joy made him smile after each meeting. She won his heart, so it's not surprising that he thought of the young Aisha when he was ready to marry again after the death of his wife Hadiga. The marriage had been taken place in the family and after it Aisha lived happily in the prophet's house... She had been deeply in love until Muhammed's death, so the women didn't hesitate in letting her to care for him in his last days. He died in Aisha's house.

This is only one of your foolish aggressions.

[Danyet]

Not many guys are prepared to read your links if they read something like this

So you reject the writings of Aisha who claims to have been molested by Mohammed when she was 6 or 9 years old and embrace the writings of Imam Ali who was implicated in the murder of Uthman and was with Mohammed as he slaughtered and raped his way across Arabia. Even his own men refused to do battle for him at one pont until he went to arbitration over the accusation of the murder. Aisha herself believed he was guilty.

in your posts.

And why not?

After a single google search about Aisha, I found the following sentences:

Aisha is the youngest of the women of Muhammed and the only one who married as virgin... Muhammed knows Aisha from the childhood and her intelligence and joy made him smile after each meeting. She won his heart, so it's not surprising that he thought of the young Aisha when he was ready to marry again after the death of his wife Hadiga. The marriage had been taken place in the family and after it Aisha lived happily in the prophet's house... She had been deeply in love until Muhammed's death, so the women didn't hesitate in letting her to care for him in his last days. He died in Aisha's house.

This is only one of your foolish aggressions.

So what? What is that supposed to mean? No one denies that Aisha was married to Mohammed. Too bad you left out the part where Aisha was only 8 or 9 years old when he had sex with her

Perhaps you had better do more than just one google next time. True research takes time, bucko!

[fortminor]

Listen, if you unaware of the battles that Mohammed took part in you can't know much about your own religion. Either you are playing dumb or you are dumb and either way I have no time for you because it means you don't belong in this discussion. Now don't come back until you do some homework. You obviously have not read one link I have already posted here on the various threads and neither have most of your cohorts. But at least some of them have the excuse that their english is not up to scratch. You don't!

If you bothered to explore my links a little you would have found some more links in Arabic.

I've read some of them, How i am supposed to believe 'em when most of them are Israeli sites-written by your cohorts-?
or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

[Admiral]

And why not?

Because your very direct way of speech, pointing the reader at the message: "Islam is bad" does not seem believable and objective, but beyond believe and subjective.

So what? What is that supposed to mean? No one denies that Aisha was married to Mohammed. Too bad you left out the part where Aisha was only 8 or 9 years old when he had sex with her

Perhaps you had better do more than just one google next

So what? This was a presentation of Mohammed's peaceful love with Aisha, not an analysis of the circumstances about the muslim marriage law. Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

Too bad that I'm only saying what is right and I'm not dealing with your argumentation-counterargumentation tactic.

http://www.kleio.org/mittelalter/MaV1a.htm

This is a site about the circumstances in the middle ages. Here they say that the age doesn't matter. For example Mathilde († 1189), a sister of Richard Löwenherz, has become engaged 1165 in the age of 9 yeaars with the 26 years old Heinrich the Lion. After 3 years they married.

The middle ages is 500-1500 after Christ, the Koran has been written about 600 A.C.

You can't use the laws of today to judge about a civilisation thousands of years before. In that time your ancestors lived such a life, too.

[fortminor]

Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

exactly !

[Danyet]

Perhaps it's normal to have a fiancee who is 9 at that time.

exactly !

You two have serious moral problems if you actually believe that!!

Does the keeping of immoral customs because "everybody else is doing it" makt it acceptable?

By your logic it was OK for native Africans to practice canibalism because it was accepted at the time.

God would not condone canibalism and have a canibal for his prophet. Just as He would not choose and condone a guy that likes to have sex little girls to be His prophet. Mohammed was not God's prophet!

[Danyet]

You can't use the laws of today to judge about a civilisation thousands of years before.

I am not judging a civilization. I am judging one man...Mohammed. He was no better than any one else in fact he was worse!

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

[Danyet]

I've read some of them, How i am supposed to believe 'em when most of them are Israeli sites-written by your cohorts-?

Then you can't believe Islamic sites either because they are written by your cohorts and therefore biased.

So why don't you start by going to relatively neutral http://www.wikipedia.com

[Danyet]

or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

That’s funny, most Muslims seem to think that Al-tabari and bukhari are authentic and quote from them on their Muslim web sites. But perhaps you are neither a real blonde or a real Muslim and don’t know it!! Tsk Tsk!!
CLICK


CLICK


CLICK

[Admiral]

I am not judging a civilization. I am judging one man...Mohammed. He was no better than any one else in fact he was worse!

If you only judge Muhammed that's ok. Saidly I didn't have this impression while reading your following post:

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

I did not interpret your words.
1 It is a proven fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and murderer to his enemies

2 Islam is based on "support" for Mohammed.

3 You are Muslim

= 4 You support at least one terrorist.

From my objective point od view, I can't perceive the meassgae: "I am judging one man...Mohammed.", but I can perceive your judge: "Islam is a terrorist nation."
Like you said, 1. Muhammed is a terrorist, 2. Islam supports Muhammed, 3. Muslim are all terrorists.
So, if you count 1 and to together you will get 3, from your point of view.

It would be good if you think first before writing an agrressive message. All these could be used against you. It's better for you to accept the truth and say sorry to the guys you insulted.

[Admiral]

This posting of me is only concerning the 1st "CLICK!" of danyet, because I haven't read the others yet.

Some Muslims use the weak Hadith defense, because they approach Muhammad with their own wishful presuppositions. So, they automatically reject any Hadith that does not meet the standard of their uncritical assumptions. Our beliefs should be grounded in historical reality: not wishful thinking.

The whole text deals with this criticism. The reasons why it's only a wishful personal thinking is because muslims should have chosen which Hadits to believe in and which not. Then the text critisizes that these wishful thinkings should not be belived in.

And the text deals with the ridiculous quarrel about which of the books are true: Bible or Koran, "as a side note".

As a side note, some Muslim scholarship applies their third standard to the events of the Bible. For example, some believe that all prophets lived sinless lives. Since Muslim belief teaches that adultery is a sin, it would follow that no prophet committed adultery. Therefore, since we believe that King Dawud (King David) was a prophet, it follows that he never committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2-5). Therefore, we must conclude that the biblical report of King Dawud's adultery was not a true report because the historicity of the report is irrelevant.

After we connected those things together, if this quote should be proving: The USA makes and will be making war with all believers of Koran because Koran isn't a documentary film which shows us that everything it says is true, I would die of laughter.

More amusing, if I haven't died yet because of laughter, the author of the article makes a comparison between Bible and Koran and says that Bible is more believable for the Americans, so the Koran is wrong. And that's maybe also a reason why the USA should make war with the islamic people.

this should land in the "jokes" thread.

[Danyet]

You have obviously not truely read or put much thought into, the Prophet of Doom site! (from which you have quoted)

[fortminor]

or from that nonsenses of Al-tabari and bukhari ?

That’s funny, most Muslims seem to think that Al-tabari and bukhari are authentic and quote from them on their Muslim web sites. But perhaps you are neither a real blonde or a real Muslim and don’t know it!! Tsk Tsk!!
CLICK


CLICK


CLICK

Muhammad has not raped anyone! these are just nonsenses spread by enemies of Islam. its exactly agains his religion to rape women .Its just creature of your petrified mind and your cohorts!

still there are some acceptable Hadith in Al-tabari and Bukhari . but not all of 'em!
also I have to say wikipedia is not neutral !Islam has so many branches , I just accept shia.
so go and search on shia sites!

[Danyet]

still there are some acceptable Hadith in Al-tabari and Bukhari . but not all of 'em!
also I have to say wikipedia is not neutral !Islam has so many branches , I just accept shia.
so go and search on shia sites!

This is exactly what I was talking about. Muslims believe only what they feel like at any given time.
You will never find the truth if you only get your history from Shia.
The historical facts are that Momammed allowed his men to rape their captives and he himself took captive women as sex slaves. ( what is so hard to believe about that?

[MissLT]

Ok Lennye, to be more precise, sorry but what you quoted from me is NOT THE POINT. Please read it first before quoting. Otherwise I think it's not polite. And maybe it's better to act with facts, not with fiction. As I will show you in the following lines. Please don't quote this sentence to say that I haven't named any facts yet, they will come in the following lines.

Didn't you see it's been pointless for you to quote the whole history of the United States when you haven't been able to answer my simple question, which I've asked you several times.

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

I talked about Manifest Destiny. Did you ever mention this expression? If not then please say sorry to me that you said a wrong sentence. You exactly didn't point at this topic.

So? What is the relation, I may ask?

Bush wanted a resolution from the UN to let inspectors look whether there are weapons in Iraq. To say it other way, Bush wanted to conquer Iraq.

Bush used a lot of lies, adjustments and contradictions. He said that the Iraq is the most dangerous threat of the whole world, and that war is the only option, didn't he say? You must have watched TV.

Bush repeated: "Saddam is a second Hitler, the UN is established to prevent the "world peace" being "destroyed by the will of a small man". The Iraq was exactly such a threat, from Bush's point of view.
It's not difficult to recognize the nonsense of this speech. The Iraq had been a poor colony, destroyed in war and the ten years of sanctions. The USA makes war with Iraq frequently, whether financially, economically or military.

Bush represents the most powerful imperial country of the world, which has the most dangerous mass destruction weapons. He used this inrivaled might to destroy weaker and smaller countries. Vietnam, Libanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Jugoslawia and Afghanistan.

USA has a lot of military bases in a lot of countries on the earth, he used them to bombard Afghanistan in the last year, thousands of civilian has been killed. and hundreds of AlQaida and Taliban has been slaughtered.

The mark of the German Nazi regime was an evil militarism and it's despise against the world law. The Bush administrators who use military as the central component of their foreign policy, is most like the Hitler government than any other government.

So who is more dangerous, the US or the Iraq, or Iran, or Libanon, or perhaps Turkey in the future? What can Muslims do with their little knifes or pistols?

What America can do with its A-bombs, we have seen.

And? Why don't you just simply answer this question of mine and we shall go on further,

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

[MissLT]

If your Aunt's husband is a muslim ,I live in an Islamic country! and I have never seen anybody who is killed because of changing his/her religion.

it is a tradition between some petrified and bigoted people who name themselves as Muslims ! and as far as i know between Jews .

My uncle didn't get killed when he left Islam. If he had been killed, he wouldn't have married my aunt. Instead, he was abandoned and shunned. I criticize any religion that tries to shun others because they don't share the same faith anymore. It's wrong! Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group. Acting otherwise than bringing love and peace is a cult-like group, to me.

[MissLT]

If he was truely a man of God he would have behaved like one and not the raping, mudering coward he was.

I did not interpret your words.
1 It is a proven fact that Mohammed was a terrorist and murderer to his enemies

2 Islam is based on "support" for Mohammed.

3 You are Muslim

= 4 You support at least one terrorist.

From my objective point od view, I can't perceive the meassgae: "I am judging one man...Mohammed.", but I can perceive your judge: "Islam is a terrorist nation."
Like you said, 1. Muhammed is a terrorist, 2. Islam supports Muhammed, 3. Muslim are all terrorists.
So, if you count 1 and to together you will get 3, from your point of view.

It would be good if you think first before writing an agrressive message. All these could be used against you. It's better for you to accept the truth and say sorry to the guys you insulted.

You quoted him and you still can't see it. How sad. Let me rephrase it for you to enlighten you, okay.

His point 1. That guy is a terrorist to him.
His point 2. Muslims must worship him and praise him, no matter what he'd done.
His point 3. The poster was a Muslim who denied what M. did. Or in other words, if you were a Gernman who didn't question anything about Hitler's action, but you said you didn't like the thought of killing a Jew. It'd would be s hypocritical saying since you'd already indirectly supported him by not questioning his ways.
His point 4. Since the poster didn't try to question what he'd done, he indirectly supported a terrorist in Danyet's eyes.

So, anymore quotes about American's history for me to prove your points.

[Admiral]

Admiral wrote:
I talked about Manifest Destiny. Did you ever mention this expression? If not then please say sorry to me that you said a wrong sentence. You exactly didn't point at this topic.

So? What is the relation, I may ask?

The relation is: American's thought has been based on the Manifest Destiny since the foundation of America. (I learned this at school)
And the Manifest Destiny is the belief to conquer other people, to give them the American way of life, which they thought is the best way of life for the mankind.
The Manifest Destiny rose up when strong believing catholic spanish settlers moved from the east coast of the American continent to the west. When they placed their frontier more and more westwards, they had to start again and again turning a wilderness into a civilised village, combating native people, survive with the goods nature gave them etc.

My teacher told me that the country America rose from this "Moving west", at the beginning where the first settlers came there to the end where they have settled the whole continent. So the thought of adventure, inventiveness, braveness (and the mood of invading other countries, but this is only what I think) became a national value/mark of Americans.
And now the Manifest Destiny still plays an important role in the political decisions of the United States. That's what I learned at the English lessons at school when I had been in the high school.

The wars of America (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan...) must have something to do with this national value of them.

[MissLT]

And? How many Americans do you know think that way?

[Admiral]

My teacher told me that all Americans think in this way more or less. I can't give my own thoughts because I haven't been in America, but I hope (and I'm sure) there are also Americans who are sensible and know how to deal with such problems.

[MissLT]

My teacher told me that all Americans think in this way more or less. I can't give my own thoughts because I haven't been in America, but I hope (and I'm sure) there are also Americans who are sensible and know how to deal with such problems.

This is the reason why I've been debating with you. You have been using your sense of ALL to judge Americans based on American history. Now, please just answer the simple question that I've asked you several times. It might be the fourth or the fifth time I've asked; I've lost count.

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

[Admiral]

His point 1. That guy is a terrorist to him.
His point 2. Muslims must worship him and praise him, no matter what he'd done.
His point 3. The poster was a Muslim who denied what M. did. Or in other words, if you were a Gernman who didn't question anything about Hitler's action, but you said you didn't like the thought of killing a Jew. It'd would be s hypocritical saying since you'd already indirectly supported him by not questioning his ways.
His point 4. Since the poster didn't try to question what he'd done, he indirectly supported a terrorist in Danyet's eyes.

Thank you for giving me his point of view, Lennye. Yeah, if danyet really meant this, I wouldn't have posted my critisicm.

What I think to these opinions, is that Americans should have let the culture develope itself, because a strong bind to religion is what all countries had in their primal state.

I can understand that Americans were very angry because of 11.9., and so the Irak War was (although it's wrong) imaginable.
But however I guess the Americans now want to shut out the danger that there could be a terror act again, so they wanted to shut out any reason of terrorism.
But I still think it's wrong to shut out the religion, because a religion is only a sort of paper to me. And I think America should rather attack the terrorist organisation than to attack the countries where the terrorists are staying, because the countries didn't have anything to do with the terrorists.

[MissLT]

Please answer my question that I've asked you first. This is all I'm asking. It's a simple question, and I don't understand why you haven't been able to answer it. :?

[Admiral]

Not all Americans voted and supported Bush. Tell me, what about those who didn't vote and support him? Were they supporting Bush, a terrorist, in your eyes?

For a president voting, it's only important what the majority said. Is it right? So, I meaned "Americans" by "the majority of Americans", I thought it could be counted as the same, at least for talking about voting.
I should have said: "the majority of Americans", sorry.

[Admiral]

Please answer my question that I've asked you first. This is all I'm asking. It's a simple question, and I don't understand why you haven't been able to answer it.

I was answering your last posting when you posted a new one.

[MissLT]

Exactly! I never said his examples were right, but I could see where he was coming from. As for yours, I couldn't see the relations. That's why I've been asking you. As you know American population is approximately around 250 millions, and 48% of them voted for Kerry in the 2004 presidential voting. Do you know how many Americans you've said supported for a terrorist while they didn't?

[Danyet]

And remember, less than half of eligible voters in USA did not even vote at all. So only 25% of eligible voters even voted for Bush

[eman]

say whatever you want.......danyet

I really believe in my religion....

and every individual has his own personality.....even you danyet
and my prophet mohammed had sent to this world to guide people to islam...because allah asked him to do that


USA is responsible for all the wars around the world not islam...because USA trying to judging islam and finish it.....this is the main reason

[fortminor]

Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group.

i strongly accept this part, and Islam is a religion of peace and Love in my opinion.I dont wanna change yours!

[Danyet]

and Islam is a religion of peace

If Islam is a religion of piece....tell how come Mohammed waged so many wars?

Did Buddha wage wars?
Did Jesus wage wars?

NO! Mohammed waged war! May he rot in hell for his crimes and his lies.

[MissLT]

Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group.

i strongly accept this part, and Islam is a religion of peace and Love in my opinion.I dont wanna change yours!

Did you really read what you quoted? Your religion abandons and shuns people who leave Islam. You can figure out the rest of what I'm trying to say, can't you?

[Admiral]

fortminor wrote:
LennyeTran wrote:

Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group.


i strongly accept this part, and Islam is a religion of peace and Love in my opinion.I dont wanna change yours!

Did you really read what you quoted? Your religion abandons and shuns people who leave Islam. You can figure out the rest of what I'm trying to say, can't you?

She thought you were speaking in a friendly way without bad background intentions. How can you require others to don't think Islam is evil to think in your way?

[MissLT]

fortminor wrote:
LennyeTran wrote:

Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group.


i strongly accept this part, and Islam is a religion of peace and Love in my opinion.I dont wanna change yours!

Did you really read what you quoted? Your religion abandons and shuns people who leave Islam. You can figure out the rest of what I'm trying to say, can't you?

She thought you were speaking in a friendly way without bad background intentions. How can you require others to don't think Islam is evil to think in your way?

She only wanted to believe what she wanted to believe, which was not what I was originally talking about. As I said,

I criticize any religion that tries to shun others because they don't share the same faith anymore. It's wrong! Religions were built to teach others to love, not to form a gang and shun someone out of the group. Acting otherwise than bringing love and peace is a cult-like group, to me.

Her religion abandons and shuns people who don't share the same faith anymore. She left out that part because she didn't wanna accept it and went on to praise it instead. She can do that to whoever she likes, but not in front of me when I just fnished criticizing it. It's a slap in my face, to me.

[Admiral]

Did Jesus wage wars?

Don't think I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace to the earth, but the sword! Quoted from Matthäus, 10th chapter, verse 34, and Jesus said it.

So Jesus wanted, but only didn't achieve. http://bitflow.dyndns.org/german/Andrea ... 030216.doc

And what do you say about the crusades against the Orthodox and the Islam? Wikipedia says that the motives are religious and economical.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzzug

Did Buddha wage wars?

Buddha himself didn't, but for example Japan made war towards USA in the 2nd world war because they said it's a defense for the buddhist nations.

Sometimes Buddhist temples in Japan or Tibet made wars against others, sometimes Buddhist countries made wars against others (for example Thailand and Burma).


I really wonder whether the mankind can live without war.

edit: Ok it was my fault I quoted danyet's post but I thought he was Lennye, sorry very much to you both. I have already corrected it.

[MissLT]

Check whose you quoted. When you finish fixing it, we'll discuss.

[Admiral]

However, you see that you can interpret mostly anything out of religious books like Koran or Bible because their writers tried to write mostly everything into their books.

So my really really serious sentence is: Religion is NOT a reason for a war.

Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. But I say that religion is the fury-tablet of the people.

[Danyet]

However, you see that you can interpret mostly anything out of religious books like Koran or Bible because their writers tried to write mostly everything into their books.

Firstly, I am not here to argue and compare religions. Only to expose Mohammed as a fraud through his historical actions.

The Crusades have nothing to do with the Jesus compared to Mohammed argument anyway! The only reason I mentioned Jesus is because Muslims keep saying that "Islam is the religion of peace". And you still haven't shown where Jesus was a killer!

Mohammed ordered 86 military actions against non-muslims 22 of which he personally led.

That fact alone exposes him as the killer he was and not a man of peace.

[MissLT]

Did Buddha wage wars?

Buddha himself didn't, but for example Japan made war towards USA in the 2nd world war because they said it's a defense for the buddhist nations.

I don't see what you've brought up is related to this topic, but I'm gonna straighten it out, anyway.

Your statement about Japan's motive in WWII is invalid. I don't know where you got your source from, but it was clear in history that Japanese soldiers fought for their Emperor even though they were Buddhists. They didn't fight the war in the name of religion. They forced the US into this war because,

In the summer of 1941, the United States began an oil embargo against Japan, which was a protest of Japan's incursion into French Indo-China. (WWII)

Or you can read here for more information,

Check the sanction part

Japan had a dream to control the Asian part, and this was the reason why they were in the WWI and II. I don't see how Buddhism has anything to do with it like you said.

Sometimes Buddhist temples in Japan or Tibet made wars against others, sometimes Buddhist countries made wars against others (for example Thailand and Burma).

Because of religion? :?

[Danyet]

Admiral seems to have no recourse against the fact that Mohammed was a killer, that is why he tries to bring up Japan but there is no evidence that either Buddha or Jesus waged war. Only Mohammed!

[fortminor]

everythin' Admiral says is true!

[MissLT]

everythin' Admiral says is true!

This is better than jokes!

[Danyet]

everythin' Admiral says is true!

And who exactly, told you this?

[fadi]

ISLAM FIRST

[Danyet]

ISLAM FIRST

I know what you mean. Islam first the Truth second!

[Admiral]

Your statement about Japan's motive in WWII is invalid. I don't know where you got your source from

http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/H-B-K/deba.hi.05.htm It tells about Japan, the second world war, and Hitler, how they all used Buddhism as their reason for the war. But this text is very long and it's in German, I would suggest you to buy a translating programm.

hahaha Lennye/danyet, I laugh at you.

Your statement about Japan's motive in WWII is invalid. I don't know where you got your source from

So, if you find a true fact that doesn't fit into your head, you need a source. What about the lies which fit in your head? Haha why haven't you ever criticised the "sources" of your cute boyfriend?
My advice to you: I understand, that you want to help danyet. But: The truth is always more important than your boyfriend.

PS: I got my source from the site I quoted above.

Admiral seems to have no recourse against the fact that Mohammed was a killer, that is why he tries to bring up Japan but there is no evidence that either Buddha or Jesus waged war. Only Mohammed!

So you feel strong when your girlfriend helps you?Are you blind or does your ignorance forbid you to read? The first post on page 11. I would be very happy to if my fiancee helps me soo much, too, but the fact that she helps you doesn't allow you to be overzealous.

[Danyet]

Of course i have not bothered to answer your lame post on page 11!!

Because it does not have anyting to do with my answering assertation that only Mohammed killed people. Not Jesus and not buhdda.

You can twist the words of Jesus and Mohammed to mean anything you want. That is why I have brought only the actions of these three into judgement and comparison.
Now, get that stuck into your brain because your arguments are nothing but drivel to me and do not even address the subject at hand. I would rather stick needles in my eyes than read one more of your inane posts.


PS On an interesting side note. Far be it from me to be a name caller...but..
This is what I found when I searched THE ENCYCLOPEADIA BRITANNIA for the word "Moron".


Adimiral
Gold Member. Joined 24 September 2005

[MissLT]

Your statement about Japan's motive in WWII is invalid. I don't know where you got your source from

http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/H-B-K/deba.hi.05.htm It tells about Japan, the second world war, and Hitler, how they all used Buddhism as their reason for the war. But this text is very long and it's in German, I would suggest you to buy a translating programm.

hahaha Lennye/danyet, I laugh at you.

If you can't even get your source right, please don't waste my time. Rewriting biased information for history is a crime. Ony gullible people would actually believe Japanese soldiers fought in the WWII because of Buddhism.

Members of EC, would you please do me a favor and raise your hand, so I can see how many people believe this information he posted?

So, if you find a true fact that doesn't fit into your head, you need a source. What about the lies which fit in your head? Haha why haven't you ever criticised the "sources" of your cute boyfriend?
My advice to you: I understand, that you want to help danyet. But: The truth is always more important than your boyfriend.


PS: I got my source from the site I quoted above.

I'm not gonna waste my time to defend this. I don't waste time with kids who don't know much. You'll grow up some day. When you do, give me a call and we'll discuss about world crisis.