The Religion of Peace

[Greg the dogsitter]

Are you still defending the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist?

[Gutenberg]

Dubya's still working? Gee, I hadn't noticed. The nation is going to hell in a bucket and he's cowering at Camp David.

You ain't got nuttin, Swamp Thing. Not that you will ever admit it.

[MacGurl]

swampy wrote:

Just jump in with your counterpoint, but it would be more valid if I thought you read the link. I wasn't trying to 'hide' that information on McVeigh. I expected you to read the link and find it for yourself.

The fact is you are the one who chose to start this thread highlighting only Muslim men in your statement, leading us all to believe that you are the one who thinks only Muslim men are terrorists. You can plead innocence all you want - but this is how you present yourself to us. You want to be seen differently, try a different approach.

[swampy]

MacGurl..."The fact is you are the one who chose to start this thread highlighting only Muslim men in your statement, leading us all to believe that you are the one who thinks only Muslim men are terrorists. You can plead innocence all you want - but this is how you present yourself to us. You want to be seen differently, try a different approach."

Stop right there.... NOWHERE in my opening message did I mention Muslim men. Kathy do you even read my posts?

------ (Let's Refresh Kathy's memory)
"WARNING! Violence contained in this video

[www.nmatv.com]

Frightening! And it is spreading...Great Britain, Canada, Holland, Germany, Spain, France. Sharia law is making headway. We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do."
----------
"You want to be seen differently, try a different approach" You seem to assume I care what you think about me, Kathy.

Greg..."Are you still defending the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist?"

I'm defending that if there is a terrorist attack it will probably be done by Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23. (Echo, echo, echo.. Greg's brain is empty so I keep getting the echo. He doesn't comprehend my simple statement, but keeps interjecting his own...echo, echo).

[Greg the dogsitter]

Your opening post was referring to Muslims, and only Muslims.

I'm glad you don't believe any stereotype about young Muslim men. The quote you were defending did just that, so it's good to make sure.

Edit: You've again lapsed from your self-proclaimed Southern etiquette. Did you mean Southern playground etiquette, or the kind of grownups?

[MacGurl]

I'm sorry - you were specific about Muslim men in subsequent posts.

[swampy]

Thank you, MacGurl.

Greg... The word "Muslim" never appeared in my opening post. But the linked movie is very accusatory because the way radical Muslims treat woman was the subject. It was not about the Christian, Jews, Shinto, or any other religious sect treats women. Or didn't you understand that? The movie was not made to compare the treatment of women by various religious sects. I'm assuming that is because not many other religious sects do treat their woman like that. Perhaps the FCLDS would fall into that minority group, but again that was not the point of the movie.

[Greg the dogsitter]

swampy wrote:
Greg... The word "Muslim" never appeared in my opening post. But the linked movie is very accusatory because the way radical Muslims treat woman was the subject. It was not about the Christian, Jews, Shinto, or any other religious sect treats women. Or didn't you understand that? The movie was not made to compare the treatment of women by various religious sects. I'm assuming that is because not many other religious sects do treat their woman like that. Perhaps the FCLDS would fall into that minority group, but again that was not the point of the movie.

You mean the post with the subject "The Religion of Peace", right? The one that linked to a video about oppression in the Muslim world? It was also the one that directly linked Islam to terrorism. Absolutely right; you didn't use "Muslim"; you used a sarcastic euphemism.

Swampy wrote:
We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do.

The first post linked Islam and terrorism. You later decried linking young Muslim men to terrorism, but defended a quote of someone who apparently did. I don't want to put words in your mouth (you insult me when I do that), but I seriously am not sure what your thoughts are.

[deckeda]

... Neither is she, by the evidence.

[kj]

...is analogous to declaring what Greg will eat on Friday. Is it a sure thing? No. Might it be reasonable? Yes.

It's not analogous _at all_. But it is a good illustration of why _simple_ logic is rarely useful in the real world (nothings that simple). You've simplified the situation in such a way as to make your logic work, but in the process, you've misrepresented the situation (it's not that simple). Plus, I think you're mixing up probability and logic because you're not quite sure what model best fits the circumstances. The last part of your post is a fair enough opinion though. kj.