Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 ... 188
Send Topic Print
spineless apologetics (Read 337145 times)
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 39946
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2220 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 10:01am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 9:36am:
Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 6:57pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 3:28pm:
And yet it is undeniable that the US kills significantly more people - it is undeniable that the US creates signficantly more suffering.

You are confusing greater military efficiency with moral superiority. Frankly, the US doesn't have to "try" to maximise casualties to achieve their economic and political objectives. In fact mostly its counter-productive. But whatever atrocities you commit during war, it was the Americans themselves who identified, more than 70 years ago, the 'supreme crime' - the crime from which all other war crimes spawn from. And that of course is the act of aggressive war - ie invading another country without just cause. And we can see the wisdom of that logic playing out today right before our very eyes: all the atrocities and horrors that spawned from the single act of unnecessarily invading Iraq. So seriously did the WWII Allies take the idea that aggressive war was the supreme crime, that they executed 24 of Germany's top brass because of their role in enacting aggressive war. Not because of any involvement they may have had in the holocaust, or any other acts of mass murder during the war - but because they kicked the whole thing off, and made all the subsequent atrocities possible. The holocaust simply wouldn't have happened if these guys didn't help commit the crime of aggressive war.

So alevine, next time you find yourself thinking how morally superior the US government is to ISIS, just remember that they committed what they themselves described 70 years earlier as the supreme crime, and kicked off all the hell we see in Iraq and Syria today - including the rise of ISIS.



What was the "just cause" of the Muslim invasion and take-over of the Roman Empire? Ottoman invasion of Europe? Of India? Raiding Europe to kidnap and sell into slavery over a million people, capturing and trading countless African slaves? What was the 'just cause'?

Please explain.


Sorry Frank, you seem to be under the illusion that my arguments about the destruction wrought by the US in the last half century or so is part of some cunning ploy to apologise for 1400 years of muslim military activity. It is not.



Not at all.  Just showing that no Muslim like you has the grounding in Islam that would allow you to strut your 'just cause' moral 'superiority'.

Islam and just cause are as incompatible as Islam and feminism.  Or Islam and development. Islam and equality.  Etc.




Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2221 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 10:18am
 
I am not strutting anyone's superiority - moral or otherwise.

The only person doing any such strutting is Alevine - I was merely refuting it.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2222 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm
 
karnal wrote: Reply #2210 - Yesterday at 8:10pm
Quote:
No, Moses, I see a difference between you sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and ISIS, say, killing or enslaving Christians and Christian communities. I think what ISIS have done is unimaginable. I literally can't imagine that kind of systematic cruelty and destruction. I agree with Tony Abbott's argument that this is, perhaps, worse than the Nazis, who tried to cover up their genocide. ISIS publicly celebrate theirs.

Your hatred, however, spawns the ISIS variety. It's the source of all human evil. This was the teaching of your prophet. It's the teaching of many prophets through the ages.

No one can ban or eradicate Islam. By this you mean banning and eradicating Muslims. You call for their banning, and you celebrate every attack on Muslims I've seen you discuss here. You call for hatred and division, which is precisely the opposite of Yeheshua's message, and you know this too.

Christianity does not support your views - hence your distance from it here. This is why I claim hypocrisy on your part.

If you can be specific on my hypocrisy, let me know. My words and actions are consistent with my views.

I don't preach hatred against anyone, including the haters. I'd like to see ISIS brought to justice. I'd like to see their victim's communities restored.

And I'd like to see you uphold the teachings of the one you profess to be your saviour.


Well how low can you go, as the muslims said when he sat down to pee.

I mean gee aren't you just a sanctimonious paragon of self righteous bullshit?

The only thing you said which has a bit of credibility is: isis celebrate their depravity.

Now the next step is to be honest and acknowledge they celebrate for one reason only, that reason is: they are obeying the degeneracy in the qur'an to the very letter, they know they are allahs' chosen ones.

Oh the bit about me sowing the seeds of division, I certainly hope I am sowing the seeds of derision, castigation and exposure of the evil in the qur'an, which engenders the islamic death cult barbarities of isis and co.

islam will eradicate itself when the world finally gets sick of their barbarity and forces them to examine the verses in the quran which spawn muslim atrocities globally.

How long will you support the status quo of bloodshed death and destruction caused by muslims, before you ask them to examine the verses in the qur'an which cause and motivate all the problems we now face?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2223 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 5:48pm
 
Lastone wrote: Reply #2218 - Yesterday at 10:42pm
Quote:
There in lies the problem. They believe that Homosexuals choose to be so.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with Christian doctrine.

It is confirmation of their own lack of understanding of the biological problems some people are born with, through no fault of their own.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2224 - Oct 6th, 2017 at 7:04pm
 
moses wrote on Oct 6th, 2017 at 5:46pm:
karnal wrote: Reply #2210 - Yesterday at 8:10pm
Quote:
No, Moses, I see a difference between you sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and ISIS, say, killing or enslaving Christians and Christian communities. I think what ISIS have done is unimaginable. I literally can't imagine that kind of systematic cruelty and destruction. I agree with Tony Abbott's argument that this is, perhaps, worse than the Nazis, who tried to cover up their genocide. ISIS publicly celebrate theirs.

Your hatred, however, spawns the ISIS variety. It's the source of all human evil. This was the teaching of your prophet. It's the teaching of many prophets through the ages.

No one can ban or eradicate Islam. By this you mean banning and eradicating Muslims. You call for their banning, and you celebrate every attack on Muslims I've seen you discuss here. You call for hatred and division, which is precisely the opposite of Yeheshua's message, and you know this too.

Christianity does not support your views - hence your distance from it here. This is why I claim hypocrisy on your part.

If you can be specific on my hypocrisy, let me know. My words and actions are consistent with my views.

I don't preach hatred against anyone, including the haters. I'd like to see ISIS brought to justice. I'd like to see their victim's communities restored.

And I'd like to see you uphold the teachings of the one you profess to be your saviour.


Well how low can you go, as the muslims said when he sat down to pee.

I mean gee aren't you just a sanctimonious paragon of self righteous bullshit?

The only thing you said which has a bit of credibility is: isis celebrate their depravity.

Now the next step is to be honest and acknowledge they celebrate for one reason only, that reason is: they are obeying the degeneracy in the qur'an to the very letter, they know they are allahs' chosen ones.

Oh the bit about me sowing the seeds of division, I certainly hope I am sowing the seeds of derision, castigation and exposure of the evil in the qur'an, which engenders the islamic death cult barbarities of isis and co.

islam will eradicate itself when the world finally gets sick of their barbarity and forces them to examine the verses in the quran which spawn muslim atrocities globally.

How long will you support the status quo of bloodshed death and destruction caused by muslims, before you ask them to examine the verses in the qur'an which cause and motivate all the problems we now face?


And this is the voice of someone who professes to go in Christ's name.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2225 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 8:39am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 3:28pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2017 at 11:19pm:
And no, I don't agree nor do I see the relevance.  Numbers are irrelevant when it comes to understanding the evil behind why someone kills. US Military, whether you like or not, goes to big lengths to minimise casualties.  Someone like ISIS goes to great lengths to maximise casualties. 


And yet it is undeniable that the US kills significantly more people - it is undeniable that the US creates signficantly more suffering.

You are confusing greater military efficiency with moral superiority. Frankly, the US doesn't have to "try" to maximise casualties to achieve their economic and political objectives. In fact mostly its counter-productive. But whatever atrocities you commit during war, it was the Americans themselves who identified, more than 70 years ago, the 'supreme crime' - the crime from which all other war crimes spawn from. And that of course is the act of aggressive war - ie invading another country without just cause. And we can see the wisdom of that logic playing out today right before our very eyes: all the atrocities and horrors that spawned from the single act of unnecessarily invading Iraq. So seriously did the WWII Allies take the idea that aggressive war was the supreme crime, that they executed 24 of Germany's top brass because of their role in enacting aggressive war. Not because of any involvement they may have had in the holocaust, or any other acts of mass murder during the war - but because they kicked the whole thing off, and made all the subsequent atrocities possible. The holocaust simply wouldn't have happened if these guys didn't help commit the crime of aggressive war.

So alevine, next time you find yourself thinking how morally superior the US government is to ISIS, just remember that they committed what they themselves described 70 years earlier as the supreme crime, and kicked off all the hell we see in Iraq and Syria today - including the rise of ISIS.

More suffering? How many people are subjugated to the version of Islam that you claim is not the version you would call legitimate?

No, I’m not confusing “greater military efficiency”.  I’m comparing intent. America isn’t intent on killing people for the purposes of spreading their religion. Isis and all jihadists are. Oh sorry, better not get bwian all upset - mujahideen Grin

And how exactly have America created the hell that is Syria? Not to mention the hell that is Iraq? Was Iraq a paradise before?



Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2226 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 1:35pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 8:39am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3rd, 2017 at 3:28pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2017 at 11:19pm:
And no, I don't agree nor do I see the relevance.  Numbers are irrelevant when it comes to understanding the evil behind why someone kills. US Military, whether you like or not, goes to big lengths to minimise casualties.  Someone like ISIS goes to great lengths to maximise casualties. 


And yet it is undeniable that the US kills significantly more people - it is undeniable that the US creates signficantly more suffering.

You are confusing greater military efficiency with moral superiority. Frankly, the US doesn't have to "try" to maximise casualties to achieve their economic and political objectives. In fact mostly its counter-productive. But whatever atrocities you commit during war, it was the Americans themselves who identified, more than 70 years ago, the 'supreme crime' - the crime from which all other war crimes spawn from. And that of course is the act of aggressive war - ie invading another country without just cause. And we can see the wisdom of that logic playing out today right before our very eyes: all the atrocities and horrors that spawned from the single act of unnecessarily invading Iraq. So seriously did the WWII Allies take the idea that aggressive war was the supreme crime, that they executed 24 of Germany's top brass because of their role in enacting aggressive war. Not because of any involvement they may have had in the holocaust, or any other acts of mass murder during the war - but because they kicked the whole thing off, and made all the subsequent atrocities possible. The holocaust simply wouldn't have happened if these guys didn't help commit the crime of aggressive war.

So alevine, next time you find yourself thinking how morally superior the US government is to ISIS, just remember that they committed what they themselves described 70 years earlier as the supreme crime, and kicked off all the hell we see in Iraq and Syria today - including the rise of ISIS.

More suffering? How many people are subjugated to the version of Islam that you claim is not the version you would call legitimate?

No, I’m not confusing “greater military efficiency”.  I’m comparing intent. America isn’t intent on killing people for the purposes of spreading their religion. Isis and all jihadists are. Oh sorry, better not get bwian all upset - mujahideen Grin

And how exactly have America created the hell that is Syria? Not to mention the hell that is Iraq? Was Iraq a paradise before?





The US invaded Iraq, in George Bush's words, to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. The US is a proselytising country. It invokes an historical doctrine for this; US exceptionalism. The US sees itself as the New World, founded on the beliefs of its puritan settlers, many of them refugees from what they saw as the old world. Rumsfeld used these references to challenge France, who refused to support the invasion of Iraq. By "old Europe", Rumsfeld was critiquing the European adherence to treaties, trade deals, and even the UN. By "freedom", Bush meant opening the Middle East up to US trade and investment. By "democracy", he meant US-backed leadership.

None of this is religious. It's naked imperialism. But it does invoke a religious symbolism and purpose that goes back to the founding of the United States as a nation under God rather than kings. The secularism of the US model of government has a religious, Protestant purpose: keeping out the corrupt European religious establishment and the papacy.

In doing this, the US influenced Christianity as a movement based on individual faith. US Pentecostalism, a proselytising expansionist movement, has influenced both the US government and Christianity as a whole. Being "born again" is a uniquely American take on Christianity. Once, the "born-againers" stayed away from politics as a principle of faith. This changed in the late 70s, when they formed a voting bloc in support of Reagan. They became political in an attempt to reverse the Roe versus Wade abortion ruling. Today, they are instrumental in deciding elections.

Of course the US did not invade Iraq for religious reasons, but separating religion from US politics is impossible to do. They're interwoven in a sense of resolve and purpose that allows the US to justify its foreign interventions through its expansionist, faith-based notion of US exceptionalism.

US hegemony has calcified around the belief that the US is the steward of Western civilisation. This worked during the Cold War, Europe's post-war rebuilding, and when the US played by the UN's rules.

The invasion of Iraq changed all that. The US no longer has the moral high ground.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2017 at 5:39pm by Mattyfisk »  
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2227 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 1:49pm
 
karnal wrote: Reply #2224 - Yesterday at 7:04pm

Quote:
And this is the voice of someone who professes to go in Christ's name.


Here's your big chance karnal.

Where have I ever professed to go in Christs' name?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2228 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:16pm
 
A load of bunkum based on deliberately false presumptions:

Quote:
The US invaded Iraq, in George Bush's words, to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. The US is a proselytising country. It invokes an historical doctrine for this; US exceptionalism. The US sees itself as the New World, founded on the beliefs of its puritan settlers, many of them refugees from what they saw as the old world. Rumsfeld used these references to challenge France, who refused to support the invasion of Iraq. By "old Europe", Rumsfeld was critiquing the European adherence to treaties, trade deals, and even the UN. By "freedom", Bush meant opening the Middle East up to US trade and investment. By "democracy", he meant US-backed leadership.

None of this is religious. It's naked imperialism. But it does invoke a religious symbolism and purpose that goes back to the founding of the United States as a nation under God rather than kings. The secularism of the US model of government has a religious, Protestant purpose: keeping out the corrupt European religious establishment and the papacy.

In doing this, the US influenced Christianity as a movement based on individual faith. US Pentecostalism, a proselytising expansionist movement, has influenced both the US government and Christianity as a whole. Being "born again" is a uniquely American take on Christianity.

Of course the US did not invade Iraq for religious reasons, but separating religion from US politics is impossible to do. They're interwoven in a sense of resolve and purpose that allows the US to justify its foreign interventions through its expansionist, faith-based notion of US exceptionalism.


What really happened:

America was minding her own business up untill the 2nd world war.

She was then inextricably drawn into world affairs with the Japanese sneak attack on pearl harbour.
 
America joined the allies, the German alliance was defeated.

Immediately after the 2nd world war communism became the enemy of the free world, in the ensuing cold war period America was the champion of the free world.

The leftwing which was a willing participant of the communist push to destroy the west, then started the campaign to destroy us from within, it's been all downhill since then with more and more leftard policies being implemented to undermine our western values.

In all of this America has been of tremendous value in fight against the threat of drugs.

In the early days once again we saw the lefties with their, more people are killed by tobacco, alcohol etc.etc. excuses, well we all know the toll drug use has had on us up to now.

So the facts are America has been a blessing to the free world, much to the distress of the lefties.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2229 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:17pm
 
moses wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 1:49pm:
karnal wrote: Reply #2224 - Yesterday at 7:04pm

Quote:
And this is the voice of someone who professes to go in Christ's name.


Here's your big chance karnal.

Where have I ever professed to go in Christs' name?


I'm not sure. If you don't, I'm happy to take it all back.

But I'm pretty sure you do.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2230 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:25pm
 
Quote:
I'm not sure. If you don't, I'm happy to take it all back.

But I'm pretty sure you do.


In other words you can't back up your claims.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2231 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:41pm
 
moses wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 1:49pm:
karnal wrote: Reply #2224 - Yesterday at 7:04pm

Quote:
And this is the voice of someone who professes to go in Christ's name.


Here's your big chance karnal.

Where have I ever professed to go in Christs' name?


So, you're not a Christian then, Moses?   Shocked
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2232 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:44pm
 
moses wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
Quote:
I'm not sure. If you don't, I'm happy to take it all back.

But I'm pretty sure you do.


In other words you can't back up your claims.


That's right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91863
Gender: male
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2233 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:51pm
 
moses wrote on Oct 7th, 2017 at 2:16pm:
A load of bunkum based on deliberately false presumptions:

Quote:
The US invaded Iraq, in George Bush's words, to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. The US is a proselytising country. It invokes an historical doctrine for this; US exceptionalism. The US sees itself as the New World, founded on the beliefs of its puritan settlers, many of them refugees from what they saw as the old world. Rumsfeld used these references to challenge France, who refused to support the invasion of Iraq. By "old Europe", Rumsfeld was critiquing the European adherence to treaties, trade deals, and even the UN. By "freedom", Bush meant opening the Middle East up to US trade and investment. By "democracy", he meant US-backed leadership.

None of this is religious. It's naked imperialism. But it does invoke a religious symbolism and purpose that goes back to the founding of the United States as a nation under God rather than kings. The secularism of the US model of government has a religious, Protestant purpose: keeping out the corrupt European religious establishment and the papacy.

In doing this, the US influenced Christianity as a movement based on individual faith. US Pentecostalism, a proselytising expansionist movement, has influenced both the US government and Christianity as a whole. Being "born again" is a uniquely American take on Christianity.

Of course the US did not invade Iraq for religious reasons, but separating religion from US politics is impossible to do. They're interwoven in a sense of resolve and purpose that allows the US to justify its foreign interventions through its expansionist, faith-based notion of US exceptionalism.


What really happened:

America was minding her own business up untill the 2nd world war.

She was then inextricably drawn into world affairs with the Japanese sneak attack on pearl harbour.
 
America joined the allies, the German alliance was defeated.

Immediately after the 2nd world war communism became the enemy of the free world, in the ensuing cold war period America was the champion of the free world.

The leftwing which was a willing participant of the communist push to destroy the west, then started the campaign to destroy us from within, it's been all downhill since then with more and more leftard policies being implemented to undermine our western values.

In all of this America has been of tremendous value in fight against the threat of drugs.

In the early days once again we saw the lefties with their, more people are killed by tobacco, alcohol etc.etc. excuses, well we all know the toll drug use has had on us up to now.

So the facts are America has been a blessing to the free world, much to the distress of the lefties. 


More than ten times more people are killed by tobacco and alcohol than illegal drugs, Moses. So I'm curious. How is this an excuse?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
moses
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6353
Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2234 - Oct 7th, 2017 at 3:01pm
 
The point is, it was used as part of the propaganda campaign by the left to press drugs as being the lesser of the two evils (that's the subliminal message the left wants' to promote).

You won the day, drugs are now an almost insurmountable problem in western society
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 ... 188
Send Topic Print