Quote:


Do you think the potential is there? Would you defend Nazis provided they were in a minoirty?

There were a lot of superficially nice nazis. There are a lot of Muslims around. Suppose every majority Muslim country banned together to form a large empire and they got their poo together? Would they be a potential threat then? These things could happen overnight.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:03pm:


Cute.

Would muslims allow your way of lif is the question.

ANd yes, they are a threat to your way of life, too. And since you are defending them, the answer is yes, you are defending them even though they are a threat to your way of life - the definition of a useful idiot.

Quote:


Attack and defense are really one in the same. I don't care too much about the morals of attacking Poo Bear when basic freedoms are being compromised. He is there to spread the lies of Islam, of which you seem to buy into.

If it were to come down to it, it would be us who you have compromised that you would be running to for solace and protection from the evils of Islam, not them.

The furtherment of Islamic lies is that a depiction of Mo is forbidden in the quran. It is not. The ambiguous writings of the quran have been interpreted over the ages to suit whatever lies might be believed and therefore accrue more control by compromising the good democratic name of "respect for opinion or belief".
The tact of this "non-depiction of Mo" thing revolves around the intent to make Mo more of a mystery, more seductive, and therefore more powerful than (the imaginary) Jesus. It's little wonder that women are often seduced by this pathetic mystery (lie).

As I think I have shown, there have been many depictions of Mo throughout the history of Islam. It's only been in the last few hundred years that it has been agreed that a "soap opera" is more profitable for the spread of lies.

If the word of Alan was lost within the first 1000 years of Islam, then who was it that more recently enlightened the muslim pundits? They've shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.
Abu has shown himself as a liar for supporting the lies of Islam and I am all too aware that there are extremists out there who don't like people stating the elephant in the room when they have a perfectly good lie going on.
So if you expect me to support you at some time in the future Annie, I wont. I'll leave you to it.
Enjoy.i

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Yes, please leave me to it. I find your sexism nauseating. And typical.


Quote:


The banning of pictures of Muhammad is a safeguard against idol worship. There's no big conspiracy or secret ulterior motive.

Helian,

Quote:


What would you have them do?

Okay. What would religious duty have them do?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 9:49am:

Advance the cause of Islam by whatever means available to them physically and/or psychologically. Including covert approval of extreme acts where they are born of the need to avenge, defend or advance the cause of Islam.

Amadd wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 10:19am:

True. Covert idolisation.