Religion Topics On These Forums

[Bubsa]

Again, it's the civilised posters that read those annoucements :(

[Satenza]

It would help establish rules of debate. It's true those posters probably wouldn't read it, but then those posters don't read the forum rules either. Yet we have those on display because they are helpful to your average user. It may help stop them a little, but they would be useful to everyone as well.

[Locke]

Thats why we need a debate forum, where we can at least have some guidelines on how to debate. Instead of some people who parade in and say stupid things, and everyone who does not wish to enter them can avoid them if they like. :D

 

It's a nice idea, but what's to stop those people bombing in? They could avoid a thread just the same, but alas..

 

 

 

A very active Mod who is quick with the delete button.

[Bubsa]

Thats why we need a debate forum, where we can at least have some guidelines on how to debate. Instead of some people who parade in and say stupid things, and everyone who does not wish to enter them can avoid them if they like. :D

 

It's a nice idea, but what's to stop those people bombing in? They could avoid a thread just the same, but alas..

 

 

 

A very active Mod who is quick with the delete button.

 

We're still talking about on tip.it, right?

[hohto]

If something bad happened where grown men of a certain type declared war on the US and operated using guerrilla style tactics where no uniforms were worn and had staged multiple attacks on US interests does it make any sense to search Grandma at the airport?

 

 

 

If USA has bombed the birth places of their religion for decades, supported people who are totally against them and so on, should they just sit down at vote for people who like Kerry who get more votes but still not become presidents? By judging every single one of them, it's the same as we would judge all yankees to be fat. After all, there's percentually (and probably by raw amount too) fat yankees and radical muslims.

 

 

 

Islam is the 2nd biggest and the fastest growing religion in the whole world. They are getting threatened wrongly, so of course a lot of radical extremists are there. If you start your own holy war against whole religion, you are doomed. If you want to have less attacks against you, you should live together, not fight. By having pretty openly anti-islamic politic, you are just throwing gasoline to a fire.

 

 

 

edit: By putting muslims into a different group than yourselves or everyone else, you don't protect yourselves. That way you feed the gab, give another reason to argue and just cut your own branch.

[yomaster19]

i am christian.

 

but hey, pretty much every faith believes in 1 God. From there, they all differ. :thumbsup: \

[NewHaiku]

i am christian.

 

but hey, pretty much every faith believes in 1 God.

 

 

 

If by "pretty much every faith" you mean "like, three," then yes, I suppose pretty much every religion is monotheistic.

 

 

 

I was raised Jewish. Atheist now.

[Locke]

They were arabs last

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1979.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1982.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1983.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1985.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1986.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1988.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1993.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1995.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1996.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 1998.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 2000.

 

 

 

They were arabs in 2001.

 

 

 

They were arabs both times in 2005.

 

 

 

It was a little more than just "last time," so quit fooling yourself.

 

 

 

Apparently they've never heard of "cosmetic surgery" but thanks for giving them more ideas to make it more difficult for those trying to keep us safe to do their job.

[Ambassadar]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up the data Locke and nice point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to this...

 

If USA has bombed the birth places of their religion for decades,

 

I wasn't aware the US had bombed Jerusalem or Mecca which are the two holiest places in Islam if I'm not mistaken. Saudia Arabia was the birthplace of Islam and not one US bomb ever to my knowledge. Mind clarifying this point more because it sounds like empty rhetoric to me...

 

 

 

 

 

By judging every single one of them, it's the same as we would judge all yankees to be fat. After all, there's percentually (and probably by raw amount too) fat yankees and radical muslims.

 

If a fat yankee in your country was going to hurt people then if I was you I would search every yankee that came into your country to make sure they weren't fat so that your people could be safe. As a yankee I would understand this and if I didn't like it I just wouldn't go visit your country... If I was a fat Yankee I would avoid your country. How is that a problem? It's perfectly reasonable and fair on your part to require that of yankees if fat yankees were a danger.

 

 

 

Islam is the 2nd biggest and the fastest growing religion in the whole world.

 

I guess convert or die is working well for them.

 

 

 

They are getting threatened wrongly

 

And which genocide or act of murderous terrorism or travesty of justice that Muslims have committed against non Muslims are you referring to?

 

 

 

If you start your own holy war against whole religion, you are doomed.

 

Interesting because I was aware of only one religion going around declaring holy wars (or jihad as they like to call it) against others.

 

 

 

If you want to have less attacks against you, you should live together, not fight.

 

I don't think Western culture is the culture having difficulty "living together" with the rest of the world. Maybe it's that other culture... you know... the one that is fighting and murdering in pretty much every single place their culture overlaps another culture. Funny how all those cultures that they are fighting for the most part have no problems on their other borders...

 

 

 

By having pretty openly anti-islamic politic, you are just throwing gasoline to a fire.

 

By anti-Islamic politics do you mean because we don't follow Sharia and delegate women to the role objects and have different penalties if a Muslim vs. a non Muslim commits a crime and murder anyone that wants to change to another religion other than Islam, etc etc etc?

 

 

 

By putting muslims into a different group than yourselves or everyone else, you don't protect yourselves.

 

Actually Muslims have done a good enough job of putting themselves in another group since they try to bring their own form of government(Sharia) to every country they immigrate to instead of adopting the traditional customs and values of the nation they move to. Oh yeah and that whole thing where if you want to quit being a Muslim your family is supposed to MURDER you.

 

 

 

I think this quote sums up why Muslims get put in another group

 

"A speaker ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwho called himself Zachariah ... preached that the non-believers were dispensable: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâTheyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re kuffar. TheyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[BlueTear]

It was a little more than just "last time," so quit fooling yourself.

 

 

 

One of the muslim extremists arrested in connection with the bombing on Bali, which killed mostly australian tourists IIRC - and yes, the group was not Al-Qauda but has ties with them - was described as being unhappy because he'd killed mostly australians. He wasn't remorseful that so many people had been killed, he was just unhappy because there hadn't been more americans among the dead. He was an indonesian. Born, breed and raised.

 

 

 

If you honestly believe "it's never been done before" is likely to provide you with adequate security, then fine by me. I promise, I won't even keep an "I told you so" sign around.

 

 

 

Apparently they've never heard of "cosmetic surgery" but thanks for giving them more ideas to make it more difficult for those trying to keep us safe to do their job.

 

 

 

I'm glad we're all able to keep this discussion at a reasonable level and avoid childish jabs.

[hohto]

I wasn't aware the US had bombed Jerusalem or Mecca which are the two holiest places in Islam if I'm not mistaken. Saudia Arabia was the birthplace of Islam and not one US bomb ever to my knowledge. Mind clarifying this point more because it sounds like empty rhetoric to me...

 

 

 

I meant the birth place in a larger scale: the area where it has evolved into what it is now, spread and so on. If you still don't get it, it's the Near East.

 

 

 

If a fat yankee in your country was going to hurt people then if I was you I would search every yankee that came into your country to make sure they weren't fat so that your people could be safe. As a yankee I would understand this and if I didn't like it I just wouldn't go visit your country... If I was a fat Yankee I would avoid your country. How is that a problem? It's perfectly reasonable and fair on your part to require that of yankees if fat yankees were a danger.

 

 

 

Seriously, you need to be more open minded. With that logic you should stop every single person and do serious security tests. No man is more dangerous than any other in general: what reads in your papers at the religion field means nothing. By judging every muslim before hand you just dig your own grave.

 

 

 

What I've seen with my own eyes, yankees won't be that cooperative. I've personally worked with tourists and most of the yankees ones didn't give a damn about security rules. Even Zambians who didn't speak any same language as I understood the rules better than those yankees who got them in both spoken and written form.

 

 

 

I guess convert or die is working well for them.

 

What do you mean with this? It has spread a lot more peaceful way than Christianity did.

 

 

 

And which genocide or act of murderous terrorism or travesty of justice that Muslims have committed against non Muslims are you referring to?

 

 

 

I'm refering to how they are being threated, the way you are acting for example. I'm refering to how you are judging them all just because of few lunatics. I'm refering to how you are attacking their countries and putting up proxy goverments.

 

 

 

Interesting because I was aware of only one religion going around declaring holy wars (or jihad as they like to call it) against others.

 

 

 

You already had your holy wars in Crusades which were many times bloodier than these "Jihads" declared by random terrorist groups. Now you got your wars against terrorism which got as much to do with a war against terrorism as Hiroshima or Nagasaki had with human rights.

 

 

 

I don't think Western culture is the culture having difficulty "living together" with the rest of the world. Maybe it's that other culture... you know... the one that is fighting and murdering in pretty much every single place their culture overlaps another culture. Funny how all those cultures that they are fighting for the most part have no problems on their other borders...

 

 

 

The problem is western culture. In our minds it's like "be like us or be against us." We've seen it through history: how we threated other countries during the colonial imperialist times. How we threated Japan and other asian countries before and after WW2, how we threated the Soviet Union.

 

 

 

By anti-Islamic politics do you mean because we don't follow Sharia and delegate women to the role objects and have different penalties if a Muslim vs. a non Muslim commits a crime and murder anyone that wants to change to another religion other than Islam, etc etc etc?

 

 

 

That's not even worth wasting my time on answering.

 

 

 

Yes, your solutions of just concede to all their demands and change our political system so it doesn't offend Muslims is clearly the best solution. Appeasement always works. Fighting never works. Especially not against Stalin in the Winter War that you have posted in your signature... Oh wait... the Finns won a brilliant victory in that war and preserved their freedom against Soviet expansionism.

 

 

 

Can't really compare a country vs country war and country vs religion fight.

[Faux]

Hohto and BlueTear, are you two Muslims?

[hohto]

Hohto and BlueTear, are you two Muslims?

 

 

 

Atheist, officially don't belong to any religion.

[Locke]

One of the muslim extremists arrested in connection with the bombing on Bali, which killed mostly australian tourists IIRC - and yes, the group was not Al-Qauda but has ties with them - was described as being unhappy because he'd killed mostly australians. He wasn't remorseful that so many people had been killed, he was just unhappy because there hadn't been more americans among the dead. He was an indonesian. Born, breed and raised.

 

 

 

If you honestly believe "it's never been done before" is likely to provide you with adequate security, then fine by me. I promise, I won't even keep an "I told you so" sign around.

 

 

 

Wait. Your response to me listing 13 different attacks against the United States by arabs was to tell me that one Indonesian man was sad that he didn't kill more Americans in an attack? I don't see how that is even an argument.

 

 

 

I'm glad we're all able to keep this discussion at a reasonable level and avoid childish jabs.

 

 

 

It was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't bring your sense of humor with you today.

[BlueTear]

Wait. Your response to me listing 13 different attacks against the United States by arabs was to tell me that one Indonesian man was sad that he didn't kill more Americans in an attack? I don't see how that is even an argument.

 

 

 

I provided an example of a muslim extremist/terrorist of non-arabic origin who's a member of an islamistic terrorist organization that has orchestrated a suiciding bombing and as ties to Al-Quada, who would like to kill americans.

 

 

 

If that doesn't constitute an argument why searching all persons of arabic descent doesn't provide adequate protection against islamic terrorism, well... As I said, if "it's never been done before" is your opinion of adequate security mesures, fine by me.

 

 

 

It was a joke. I'm sorry you didn't bring your sense of humor with you today.

 

Nah, I tend to have a pretty infantile sense of humour, but giving ideas to terrorist just isn't funny.

 

 

 

Nor does it address the actual issue, which is another point why searching people of arabic descent just creates a false sense of security.

[hellbellz]

It sounds like you are the one who wants to destroy things-- religions. Are you prejudice against all religions? I don't believe in aethism but I can live with it. Can't you live with my faith?

[Satenza]

We live in a world of empiricism, faith is the complete opposite of what we as rational creatures should believe in. Thats my problem with faith, faith is nothing. It makes a belief which has less empirical evidence than myself being God look quite plausiable. When in actual fact if you really think about it. Im willing to bet no faith has the correct interpretation of God and her attributes. We assign God attributes, thats like assigning someone we have never met a personality. It doesn't make sense and the chances you are correct is tiny.

 

 

 

I admire all the work religious people do, and how the Bible may possibly help you through life at times. Just don't tell me Genesis is a valid theory for the creation of the universe. Or faith is worth all the suffering that it has created. Or that a reason for anything is "it's written in the Bible".

[megakiller32]

We live in a world of empiricism, faith is the complete opposite of what we as rational creatures should believe in. Thats my problem with faith, faith is nothing. It makes a belief which has less empirical evidence than myself being God look quite plausiable. When in actual fact if you really think about it. Im willing to bet no faith has the correct interpretation of God and her attributes. We assign God attributes, thats like assigning someone we have never met a personality. It doesn't make sense and the chances you are correct is tiny.

 

 

 

I admire all the work religious people do, and how the Bible may possibly help you through life at times. Just don't tell me Genesis is a valid theory for the creation of the universe. Or faith is worth all the suffering that it has created. Or that a reason for anything is "it's written in the Bible".

 

 

 

Run!! he's here again!! :shock: Let people believe what they want. You can believe your evoloutionary theory, other people can believe their bible-ly stuff.

[Locke]

I provided an example of a muslim extremist/terrorist of non-arabic origin who's a member of an islamistic terrorist organization that has orchestrated a suiciding bombing and as ties to Al-Quada, who would like to kill americans.

 

 

 

13:1 is not an adequate argument against the searching of arab muslims. It is an adequate argument against only searching arab muslims, but that is not the argument I am making.

 

 

 

If that doesn't constitute an argument why searching all persons of arabic descent doesn't provide adequate protection against islamic terrorism, well... As I said, if "it's never been done before" is your opinion of adequate security mesures, fine by me.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that my opinion was "it's never been done before." Maybe this argument would be simpler if you were actually addressing my point, instead of a made up point.

 

 

 

Nah, I tend to have a pretty infantile sense of humour, but giving ideas to terrorist just isn't funny.

 

 

 

Nor does it address the actual issue, which is another point why searching people of arabic descent just creates a false sense of security.

 

 

 

Let me rephrase:

 

 

 

I thought you were making a joke about cosmetic surgery because the last time I checked, muslim arabs were not getting cosmetic surgery and then blowing up/flying airplanes into buildings. I was responding to the joke you made about cosmetic surgery.

 

 

 

If you were being serious about cosmetic surgery then allow me to post a serious rebuttle: Arab muslims are not getting cosmetic surgery to blow up/fly airplanes into buildings. For all you know, you just gave them that idea.

 

 

 

You're being pedantic about that point and you know it. You don't win brownie points for picking apart my joke.

[StrOwez]

Hohto and BlueTear, are you two Muslims?

 

 

 

Atheist, officially don't belong to any religion.

 

 

 

What about humanism or materialsm? You can call those religions.

[Nedich]

The idea of targetting Muslims at airport security wouldn't work. It would probably make the situation worse. Sectarianism would increase between Muslims and people of other Religions. We shouldn't be promoting racial inferiority (which by specifically targetting Muslims we would be) to others, as the problem would escalate out of control. Can you imagine how Al-Quaeda would profit from this?

 

 

 

There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil for almost 6 years, fear is the only weapon Al-Quaeda has and by acting on this ill thought out idea we would be playing directly into their hands.

[Locke]

There hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil for almost 6 years

 

 

 

Exactly. That's the same US soil that has airport security performing racial profiling.

[Ambassadar]

I meant the birth place in a larger scale: the area where it has evolved into what it is now, spread and so on. If you still don't get it, it's the Near East.

 

 

 

And what country in the near east has the yes been bombing for DECADES like you said? That means 20 years or more.

 

 

 

You already had your holy wars in Crusades which were many times bloodier than these "Jihads" declared by random terrorist groups.

 

Several points on this one.

 

1. The Bible does not support a violent holy "Crusade" in any shape form or fashion. The Koran does support the idea of Jihad. Jesus spread Christianity for dying on the cross. Muhammad spread Islam by putting people to the sword.

 

2. If Muslims should still be angry over the Crusades then the Aztecs should still be trying to murder Spaniards because of Cortez.

 

3. The Crusades are nowhere near as bloody as Islamic expansionism. Muhammad wiped out every single Christian, Jew and pagan on the entire Saudi peninsula when he was alive. That is called genocide. That set the standard for how Islam spreads.

 

 

How we threated Japan and other asian countries before and after WW2, how we threated the Soviet Union.

 

Wow, you are condemning Western culture for threatening the Japanese who were conducting the rape of Nanking and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese people and threatening the Soviets who were trying to take over the world and killing millions and millions of people in the process? Japanese soldiers were violating Chinese female babies and cutting them open to be able to do so and violating every woman they could get their hands on. The officers would practice chopping off heads of Chinese civilians for sport. Yeah... Western culture is obviously the one at fault here... Go read a history book.

 

 

Can't really compare a country vs country war and country vs religion fight.

 

The point is appeasement never works against an aggressive enemy regardless of the context.

[hohto]

And what country in the near east has the yes been bombing for DECADES like you said? That means 20 years or more.

 

 

 

If we go into this, fine.

 

- Persian gulf

 

- Afganistan 2001

 

- Iraq 2002

 

 

 

There's your decades if we really start having you-know-what with dots. Not enough? Fine.

 

 

 

- 1956 marines in Egypt. If that doesn't count for the near east, then lets get on...

 

- 1958 Lebanon marines vs rebels.

 

- 1958 nuclear threat against Iraq.

 

 

 

Should be enough of examples of that. More can be found from http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Bible does not support a violent holy "Crusade" in any shape form or fashion. The Koran does support the idea of Jihad. Jesus spread Christianity for dying on the cross. Muhammad spread Islam by putting people to the sword.

 

2. If Muslims should still be angry over the Crusades then the Aztecs should still be trying to murder Spaniards because of Cortez.

 

3. The Crusades are nowhere near as bloody as Islamic expansionism. Muhammad wiped out every single Christian, Jew and pagan on the entire Saudi peninsula when he was alive. That is called genocide. That set the standard for how Islam spreads.

 

 

 

1. Yet, Crusades were led by the Pope, headmaster of your religion.

 

2. How can you compare that to brutal massacres where tons of people lost their lives mainly (but not always!) because of their religion? Don't forget that many Aztecs died to plagues and virology wasn't known about in those days.

 

3. The crusades weren't only against muslims. Look at the taking over of Finland for example. There were muslims nowere near us and they didn't even affect us any way.

 

 

 

I've written one essay on this earlier. It can be read at

 

http://sekolust.vuodatus.net/blog/categ ... %28eng.%29

 

 

 

Wow, you are condemning Western culture for threatening the Japanese who were conducting the [assault] of Nanking and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese people and threatening the Soviets who were trying to take over the world and killing millions and millions of people in the process? Japanese soldiers were violating Chinese female babies and cutting them open to be able to do so and violating every woman they could get their hands on. The officers would practice chopping off heads of Chinese civilians for sport. Yeah... Western culture is obviously the one at fault here... Go read a history book.

 

 

 

Your doings in Japan started before the whole damn Soviet Union was even seriously thought of or the monsterous things in Nankin had even started. Your invasion to Asia and to Japan started on totally different century than the Nanking scene, the foundation of the Soviet Union or WW2.

 

 

 

The point is appeasement never works against an aggressive enemy regardless of the context.

 

 

 

What's your point here? I seriously don't understand it how you took Winter war and Continual war here when we're talking about muslims. Those things got nothing to do with each other:

 

* Like I said, country vs country wars can't be compared to country vs religion war.

 

* We had millions of people less living in our whole country than Moscow had. Our war technology was nowhere near compared to the Soviet ones, even tho they weren't the top class yet. If a real military conflict would now start against islam, the odds would be a alot more equal than in our wars.

 

* We got literally attacked. The planes were bombing our soil, cannons roaming and troopers coming across the boards. That's totally different than random terrorist attacks done by a really small minority of muslims.

 

 

 

Hellbellz, I can live with religions as long as they don't affect to my life or try to destroy any else's life either. At the moment (and never in history) this has worked as well as French have done in wars: it just hasn't been going well.

 

 

 

Str0wez, I wouldn't call those religions in the "true" meaning of that word. I believe in human mind and rational thinking, but that doesn't mean I would be religious.

[Ambassadar]

If we go into this, fine.

 

- Persian gulf

 

- Afganistan 2001

 

- Iraq 2002

 

 

 

That isn't a period of 20 years so it is not "decades" like you said and that is mainly against one country that a league of Muslim nations fought side by side with the US in that war. Afganistan declared war on the US by openly supporting Al Quaida who had attacked the US repeatedly since the early 90's.

 

 

 

- 1956 marines in Egypt. If that doesn't count for the near east, then lets get on...

 

That was the British. I am not British. I am from the US. Try again.

 

 

 

- 1958 Lebanon marines vs rebels.

 

 

 

Lebanese Muslims pushed the government to join the newly created United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria), while the Christians wanted to keep Lebanon aligned with Western Powers. A Muslim rebellion and the toppling of a pro-Western government in Iraq caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance.

 

 

 

So lets see. We have Muslims rebelling against their elected government because their government didn't want to ally with other Muslim countries so they felt the need to try to kill people to get their way. Thanks for supporting my point that Muslims try to dominate the countries they live in and take all power and trample the rights of people of other religions in those nations.

 

 

 

Then the President of that country asks for US help so the US sends 5,000 soldiers there to help maintain order. Only 1 troop was killed so that gives you an idea of the minuscule amount of fighting going on during that event. Not quite the "bombing for decades and mass oppression of Islam" you would like to portray.

 

 

 

- 1958 nuclear threat against Iraq.

 

Threatening bombs is not dropping bombs so this doesn't support your statement that the US has been dropping bombs for decades. Secondly Iraq was going to invade Kuwait so this was supporting the Muslim nation of Kuwait by sticking up for the little guy. Would you rather the US allowed Iraq to go plunder, murder and pillage Kuwait? They stopped all that without firing a shot. That sounds like a good thing to me.

 

 

 

1. Yet, Crusades were led by the Pope, headmaster of your religion.

 

Muslims attacked Jerusalem and took it from the rightful owners. This angered the west. The Pope authorized the creation of a "Crusade" to go free the Holy Land. How is that any different than the Allies declaring war against Hitler for taking Poland and fighting to free Poland? Each has an aggressive side greedily taking property and land that is not theirs and so third parties band together to go take it back. Also the pope is not headmaster of my religion.

 

 

How can you compare that to brutal massacres where tons of people lost their lives mainly (but not always!) because of their religion?

 

Let's see... the first Crusade never would have happened except people of a certain religion decided to go conquer all their neighbors and kill any resistance and take their land. Then all of a sudden it is bad if other people come and attack those militant people of a certain religion for doing what they did?

 

 

 

I agree there was some screwy stuff going on with certain Crusades. Look at what happened to Constantinople. The difference is people at times have tried to exploit Christianity for their own selfish ends but the fundamental texts of Christianity condemn this as wrong. The fundamentalist texts of Islam support any warlike aggression that is waged. I don't get why you are having a problem understanding this point.

 

 

 

Your doings in Japan started before the whole damn Soviet Union was even seriously thought of or the monsterous things in Nankin had even started. Your invasion to Asia and to Japan started on totally different century than the Nanking scene, the foundation of the Soviet Union or WW2.

 

What does this have to do with anything regarding Islam? What does this have anything to do with the US pressuring the Soviet Union? If you want to talk about Japan then I would say they were a brutal and murderous people until after WWII. A lot of the same flaws of Islam were there in Japan during the Shogunate and under the Emporers as well. Civilizations built on those principals are always violent and brutal and have to be stopped by force. Go read the book Flyboys if you want a history of Japan.

 

 

 

The principals I am talking about in a nutshell are those that teach a group of people are superior to the rest of the people on Earth and that killing other lesser peoples to further your power or influence is ok.

 

 

 

The point is appeasement never works against an aggressive enemy regardless of the context.

 

 

 

 

What's your point here? I seriously don't understand it how you took Winter war and Continual war here when we're talking about muslims.

 

You were saying to offer appeasement to the Muslims in your original post. I just found that funny because your signature is the opposite of appeasement.

 

 

 

We got literally attacked.

 

Wow... funny, my country got literally attacked as well...