Islam Films
Mat Overton
to Muslims? I don't just mean any old film, they must have an Islamic basis
as they would otherwise not fulfil the channel's remit. E.g. Malcolm X, Ali,
Khartoum, The Message, Kandahar, Lion of the Desert etc.....?
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Mat Overton wrote:
> . . . I don't just mean any old film, they must have an Islamic basis
I love the movies. Here are the first few films which come to mind
featuring the moslems:
Rambo III (1988)
- Rambo kicks moslem butts
The Vikings (1958)
- Vikings kick moslem butts
The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)
- The British kick moslem butts
The Four Feathers (1939)
- The British kick moslem butts again
The Jewel of the Nile (1985)
- Novelist and her lover kick moslem butts
Three Little Pirates (1946)
- Stooges vs the Maharaja
Three Little Twirps (1943)
- Stooges vs Sultan of Abbadabba, a circus act
We Want Our Mummy (1939)
- Stooges vs mummy of King Rutentuten
Great question! Let's build a list!
Mat Overton
Great thanks for the stupid answer dickhead.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Mat Overton wrote:
> > Great question! Let's build a list!
> Great thanks for the stupid answer dickhead.
Well, that's no way to speak to me. While you have time to waste
gratuitously insulting me, I've been busy continuing to build the
playlist:
Beau Geste (1939)
- French vs the moslems
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
- Entente Cordiale vs the moslems
Lost In A Harem (1944)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems
Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion (1960)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems again
Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems again again
Road to Zanzibar (1940)
- Bob Hope and Bing Crosby vs the moslems
Road to Morocco (1942)
- Bob Hope and Bing Crosby vs the moslems again
xtmprs...@erols.com
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite wrote:
>
> Mat Overton wrote:
>
> > > Great question! Let's build a list!
>
> > Great thanks for the stupid answer dickhead.
>
> Well, that's no way to speak to me. While you have time to waste
> gratuitously insulting me, I've been busy continuing to build the
> playlist:
>
> Beau Geste (1939)
> - French vs the moslems
>
beau hunks (sometime in the 30's
- Laurel and Hardy vs the Moslems
xtmprs...@erols.com
How about some old nazi propaganda films where jews are blamed
for everything.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
xtmprs...@erols.com wrote:
> beau hunks (sometime in the 30's
> - Laurel and Hardy vs the Moslems
Great call: Beau Hunks, 1931. Stan and Olly join the Foreign Legion.
Tony Cox
news:suqUb.9370$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Can anyone suggest some films for broadcast on satellite TV likely to
appeal
> to Muslims?
"The day the earth stood still" (1951)
- America humbled and forced to give up its weapons
by austere alien "messenger" (Michael Rennie) and all-powerful
enforcer (Omah Sharif). Thinly veiled analogy of the triumph
of Islam over the infidel. Islamic film rating NC-17 (graphic female
face exposure, brief lip contact).
"The Boys from Brazil" (1978)
- Thrown out of their homes by Zionists backed by the
western powers, downtrodden heroes plot their return.
With Gregory Peck as the quiet and self-effacing Dr.
Mengele. All male cast. Islamic film rating G (no Muslim-
on-Muslim violence).
"Seven brides for Seven brothers" (1954)
- With scant regard for American immigration laws, the
hero Adam (MABPWH) starts to assemble an extended
family. Islamic film rating X (full frontal singing, graphic
lip contact, strong musical content, pig visible in farm
scene).
Count 1
"Cuthbert Thistlethwaite" <nosil...@myface.net> wrote in message
news:4022491C...@myface.net...
'True Lies'
- Arnold Schwarzenegger kicks muslim butts.
Rodrigo Diaz
"Mat Overton" <mat.o...@REMOVElealholm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:suqUb.9370$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Rodrigo Diaz
"Cuthbert Thistlethwaite" <nosil...@myface.net> wrote in message
news:4022491C...@myface.net...
>
>
>
Rodrigo Diaz
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoon.com> wrote in message
news:bvtv9a$10ojhs$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
Tony Cox
news:bvtv9a$10ojhs$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
"Arabian Nights" (2000)
- Muslims kick each other's butts.
Jon
Overton <mat.o...@REMOVElealholm.co.uk> wrote:
It's actually haram to portray the human image in Islam so I doubt
there's going to be all that many films... here's a Fatwa ruling on the
subject of "Islamic movies" from the Mufti we all know and love -
<http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5325>
Shia Muslims, however, don't seem to have a problem with depictions of
people in paintings and photography so there's probably a movie
industry in Iran.
There would be plenty of movies that aren't "Islamic" but deal with
life in Islamic countries like Lebanon or Iran .. try emailing SBS tv
in Australia .. http://www.sbs.com.au .. SBS is a "multicultural"
television broadcaster and is world respected for its translation
services .. they have a program sales division.
--
Jon
Tony Cox
news:irvUb.12772$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Arabian Nights" (1974)
- Muslims kick, lick, spank and fondle each other's butts.
Filthy Scrounger
Mat Overton <mat.o...@REMOVElealholm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:suqUb.9370$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
'The Siege' with Bruce Willis.
xtmprs...@erols.com
Jon wrote:
>
> In article <suqUb.9370$%i5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Mat
> Overton <mat.o...@REMOVElealholm.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone suggest some films for broadcast on satellite TV likely to appeal
> > to Muslims? I don't just mean any old film, they must have an Islamic basis
> > as they would otherwise not fulfil the channel's remit. E.g. Malcolm X, Ali,
> > Khartoum, The Message, Kandahar, Lion of the Desert etc.....?
>
> It's actually haram to portray the human image in Islam so I doubt
> there's going to be all that many films... here's a Fatwa ruling on the
> subject of "Islamic movies" from the Mufti we all know and love -
>
> <http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5325>
>
> Shia Muslims, however, don't seem to have a problem with depictions of
> people in paintings and photography so there's probably a movie
> industry in Iran.
>
They have to comply with
islamic ayatollah movie standards so the movies
are either not worth seeing, or come out wierd because of the
contortions
they have to go through to get approval.
Phaedrine
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite <nosil...@myface.net> wrote:
I love good movies too. You forgot:
The Wind and the Lion (Teddy Roosevelt kicks Muslim and German butt)
And wasn't there an old Shirley Temple movie?
Tony Cox
news:Phaedrine_Stonebridge...@news-60.giganews.com...
>
> And wasn't there an old Shirley Temple movie?
This one? From the Muslim movie guide:-
"Curly Top" (1935)
- Feisty 6-year-old successfully fends off advances from an
elderly suitor because no male relative can be found to
arrange the marriage. Islamic film rating R (singing, dancing
not associated with falling skyscrapers, infidel portrayed as
caring person). No one under 17 admitted without father
or two female relatives.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
Thanks to all for their contributions, including parody, to this
important work, and to Mr. Overton for asking. _Definitely_ a work in
progress, and I don't have all day, but we made a cool playlist, IMO:
Rambo III (1988)
- Rambo kicks moslem butts
The Vikings (1958)
- Kirk Douglas and the Vikings kick moslem butts
The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)
- The British kick moslem butts
The Four Feathers (1939)
- The British kick moslem butts again
The Jewel of the Nile (1985)
- Novelist and her lover kick moslem butts
Three Little Pirates (1946)
- Stooges vs the Maharaja
Three Little Twirps (1943)
- Stooges vs Sultan of Abbadabba, a circus act
We Want Our Mummy (1939)
- Stooges vs mummy of King Rutentuten
Beau Geste (1939)
- French vs the moslems
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
- Entente Cordiale vs the moslems
Lost In A Harem (1944)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems
Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems again
Abbott and Costello in the Foreign Legion (1960)
- Abbott and Costello vs the moslems again
Road to Zanzibar (1940)
- Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, and Dorothy Lamour vs the moslems
Road to Morocco (1942)
- Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, and Dorothy Lamour vs the moslems again
Beau Hunks (1931)
- Laurel and Hardy vs the moslems
True Lies (1994)
- Arnold Schwarzenegger kicks muslim butts
The Wind and the Lion (1975)
- Teddy Roosevelt kicks moslem butt
Cast a Giant Shadow (1966)
- Kirk Douglas and Angie Dickinson help Israelis kick moslem butt
Exodus (1960)
- Paul Newman, Eva Marie Saint, Peter Lawford, etc., kick moslem butt
Khartoum (1966)
- Charleton Heston kicks moslem butt
The Seige (1998)
- Bruce Willis kicks moslem butt
The Crusades (1935)
- Loretta Young helps kick moslem butt
El Cid (1961)
- Charleton Heston and Sophia Loren kick moslem butt
The Delta Force (1986)
- Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin kick moslem butt
Desert Sands (1955)
- Legionnaires kick moslem butt
The Garden of Allah (1936)
- Marlene Dietrich and Charles Boyer romance in North Africa; I don't
know whether anybody's butt gets kicked or not.
Harum Scarum (1965)
- Elvis kicks moslem butt
Legionnaire (1998)
- Jean-Claude Van Damme kicks moslem butt
Footnote: Mr Overton specifically excluded the following movie from his
question. One wonders why. Perhaps he was too busy trying to spell
"dickhead" in an attempt to insult me. (He should simply watch more
movies: "John Dickhead" was an alias used by an antagonist in Clint
Eastwood's "Pink Cadillac.") The Lion of the Desert film is considered
reasonably historically accurate, although it does not fit the mold of
the above list:
Lion of the Desert (1980)
- Anthony Quinn (Omar Muktar) kicks Rod Steiger's (Mussolini) butt as
best he can when Italy attacks Libya in the 30s.
1MAN4ALL
All you need is this book:
http://www.interlinkbooks.com/ReelBadArabs.html
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> > Mat Overton wrote:
> > > . . . I don't just mean any old film, they must have an Islamic basis
. . .
> > Great question! Let's build a list!
> All you need is this book:
> http://www.interlinkbooks.com/ReelBadArabs.html
Thanks! It was just a quick thread yesterday -- see the last post for
the list, as far as anyone had time to spend. I'm aware that it could be
considerably expanded.
xtmprs...@erols.com
Heres another one. I think the title is three kings but I'm not sure.
Its set at the end of the first gulf war, its about an american army
unit
in iraq trying to find gold stolen from kuait by the iraq army.
George clooney plays the american CO.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
xtmprs...@erols.com wrote:
. . .
> Heres another one. I think the title is three kings but I'm not sure.
> Its set at the end of the first gulf war, its about an american army
> unit
> in iraq trying to find gold stolen from kuait by the iraq army.
> George clooney plays the american CO.
Thank you; it's added to the master list as follows:
Three Kings (1999)
- George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube kick moslem butt
xtmprs...@erols.com
The list so far:
"Arabian Nights" (2000)
- Muslims kick each other's butts.
"Arabian Nights" (1974)
- Muslims kick, lick, spank and fondle each other's butts.
Rambo III (1988)
- Rambo kicks moslem butts
The Vikings (1958)
- Kirk Douglas and the Vikings kick moslem butts
The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)
- The British kick moslem butts
The Four Feathers (1939)
- The British kick moslem butts again
The Jewel of the Nile (1985)
- Novelist and her lover kick moslem butts
Three Little Pirates (1946)
- Stooges vs the Maharaja
Three Little Twirps (1943)
- Stooges vs Sultan of Abbadabba, a circus act
We Want Our Mummy (1939)
- Stooges vs mummy of King Rutentuten
Beau Geste (1939)
- French vs the moslems
Beau Hunks (1931)
Three Kings (1999)
- George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube kick moslem butt
Lion of the Desert (1980)
- Anthony Quinn (Omar Muktar) kicks Rod Steiger's (Mussolini) butt as
best he can when Italy attacks Libya in the 30s.
"Curly Top" (1935)
- Feisty 6-year-old successfully fends off advances from an
elderly suitor because no male relative can be found to
arrange the marriage. Islamic film rating R (singing, dancing
not associated with falling skyscrapers, infidel portrayed as
caring person). No one under 17 admitted without father
or two female relatives.
"The day the earth stood still" (1951)
1MAN4ALL
> > All you need is this book:
> > http://www.interlinkbooks.com/ReelBadArabs.html
>
> Thanks! It was just a quick thread yesterday -- see the last post for
> the list, as far as anyone had time to spend. I'm aware that it could be
> considerably expanded.
Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
Phaedrine
fora...@hotmail.com (1MAN4ALL) wrote:
Why not stick your head in a trash compactor instead? Oh..... I
forgot..... you already did that when you embraced the mother of all
trash compactors--- Islam.
xtmprs...@erols.com
Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
1MAN4ALL
> > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
> Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
or that's what the hijackers thought. One reason that I often don't
answer your posts is because you keep making false assertions which
are based on common myths about Islam and Muslims but which have very
little to do with reality. I think that's childish of you. Your
strategy is also not good for propaganda purposes because you come out
looking like a jerk. The people you are trying to convince are much
smarter than you think. They can see through these kinds of tricks.
XpatriotgamesX
>From: fora...@hotmail.com (1MAN4ALL)
>Date: 2/7/2004 9:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ba13f877.0402...@posting.google.com>
>
>xtmprs...@erols.com wrote in message
>news:<4024F73F...@erols.com>...
>
>> > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
>
>> Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
>
>There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
>or that's what the hijackers thought.
Not true. In post-911 tapes, Bin Laden is heard to thank Allah many times for
the successful mission. Also, Atta's preparation for his own death was
consistent with martyrs planning to meet their dark-eyed virgins.
Jon
XpatriotgamesX <xpatrio...@aol.com> wrote:
Not to mention the letters Atta left behind.
--
Jon
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
1MAN4ALL wrote:
> xtmprs...@erols.com wrote in message news:<4024F73F...@erols.com>...
> > > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
> > Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
> There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
> or that's what the hijackers thought. . . .
That does not change the fact that God, and the human imams, mullahs,
priests, and chicken-bone burners who know God so well as to be
authorized to speak for God, bear huge responsibility for the suicide
murders. God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
1MAN4ALL
Bin Ladin was not the hijacker, and thanking God for a successful
mission is far, far different from God telling him to fly planes into
buildings. And Atta's preparation was visiting strip joints, which is
more like preparation to go to hell than heaven. I think you are
simply not thinking.
drahcir
>xtmprs...@erols.com wrote in message news:<4024F73F...@erols.com>...
>
>> > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
>
>> Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
>
>There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
>or that's what the hijackers thought.
There's plenty of evidence, the strongest of which is Atta's "diary".
The way they were prepared for the mission was completely to be
immersed in the islamic ideas of martyrdom and promises of the
afterlife. Only lying scoundrels such as yourself, lone fools shouting
in the wilderness, say otherwise on newsgroups and such.
1MAN4ALL
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> > xtmprs...@erols.com wrote in message news:<4024F73F...@erols.com>...
>
> > > > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
>
> > > Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
>
> > There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
> > or that's what the hijackers thought. . . .
>
> That does not change the fact that God, and the human imams, mullahs,
> priests, and chicken-bone burners who know God so well as to be
> authorized to speak for God, bear huge responsibility for the suicide
> murders.
They are not speaking for God. They are fighting against what they
perceive as imperialism, oppression, denial of independence, and they
are asking for God's help. That's not the same as their religion
telling them to do these things.
> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
of people.
1MAN4ALL
> 1MAN4ALL wrote:
>
> > xtmprs...@erols.com wrote in message news:<4024F73F...@erols.com>...
>
> > > > Why not do a list of anti-Gay movies instead?
>
> > > Gays don't fly airplanes into buildings because god told them to.
>
> > There is no evidence that God told 9-11 hijackers to do what they did
> > or that's what the hijackers thought. . . .
>
> That does not change the fact that God, and the human imams, mullahs,
> priests, and chicken-bone burners who know God so well as to be
> authorized to speak for God, bear huge responsibility for the suicide
> murders.
They are not speaking for God. They are fighting against what they
perceive as imperialism, oppression, denial of independence, and they
are asking for God's help. That's not the same as their religion
telling them to do these things.
> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
of people.
drahcir
That dyslexia striking again? He said "MURDER-SUICIDE". Please name
the atheist murderers who in the course of their act committed
suicide. We'll be waiting....
Jeff Laventure
"1MAN4ALL" <fora...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba13f877.04020...@posting.google.com...
There's more truth in your second sentence than I think you realize. Maybe
a Freudian slip or perhaps Yahweh subtely making His presence know?
drahcir
That dyslexia striking again? He said "MURDER-SUICIDE". Please name
xtmprs...@erols.com
Right, they did it because the great pumpkin told them to.
Also, the world is flat.
1MAN4ALL
> >> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
> >> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
> >> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
> >> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
> >
> >That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
> >of people.
> That dyslexia striking again? He said "MURDER-SUICIDE". Please name
> the atheist murderers who in the course of their act committed
> suicide. We'll be waiting....
The question is why so narrowly focus that you end up with only
"murder-suicide?" Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
than "Murder-suicide." In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
bombers. In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the technique was copied by Palestinians. New
York Times did a story on this issue in their January 14, 2003
edition. Here are few excerpts:
January 14, 2003
Suicide Bombing Masters: Sri Lankan Rebels
By AMY WALDMAN
"HE WANNI, Sri Lanka. Inside the Kantharuban Arivuchcholai orphanage,
which is set in a clearing hacked from the jungle's oppressive
vegetation, sits a small painted hut, a mini-museum of sorts.
"Inside it is a picture of Kantharuban, who blew himself up in 1991.
There is a picture of Captain Millar, who blew himself up in 1987.
There is a picture of 12 cadres of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam who swallowed cyanide capsules after capture by Indian troops in
1987.
"Eleven-year-old Rajani, who calls the orphanage home, knows them all.
He knows that Kantharuban, an orphan like him, asked that the home be
founded. Captain Millar, Rajani said, was "the first Black Tiger," a
member of the special suicide unit of the rebels, who have been
fighting for a homeland for the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka for
two decades.
"They go in sea and on land in black robes,' he said, proud of his
knowledge. 'They will go and jam themselves against anything.'
"When Captain Millar plowed a truck full of explosives into an army
camp in July 1987, 40 soldiers died, along with the captain, and a
culture was born.
"It has elevated the suicide attack to the ultimate commitment to the
movement.
"The Tigers did not invent the suicide attack, but they proved the
tactic to be so unnerving and effective for a vastly outmanned
fighting force that their methods were studied and copied, notably in
the Middle East.
"Of all the suicide-capable terrorist groups we have studied, they are
the most ruthless, the most disciplined," said Rohan Gunaratna, a
research fellow at the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political
Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. He said the
group was responsible for more than half of the suicide attacks
carried out worldwide.
"Until Sept. 11, "they were the deadliest terror organization in the
world," one American official said. They used men, women, children and
animals; boats, trucks and cars. They mounted suicide attacks on the
battlefield as well as off.
Suicide has long been part of the Tiger culture. Tigers were given
cyanide capsules and told to use them if captured. Many did."
drahcir
>drahcir <1...@233435r.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
>> >> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
>> >> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
>> >> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
>> >
>> >That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
>> >of people.
>
>> That dyslexia striking again? He said "MURDER-SUICIDE". Please name
>> the atheist murderers who in the course of their act committed
>> suicide. We'll be waiting....
>
>The question is why so narrowly focus that you end up with only
>"murder-suicide?"
No. The STATEMENT was:
>Committing
>> >> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
>> >> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
>> >> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
to which you replied
>> >That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
>> >of people.
which did not address the statement since killing or slaughering is
not murder-suicide. May I ask you to clarify, like that between idiot
and moron, the difference between killed and slaughtered? Are we
noticing a trend here?
>Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
>than "Murder-suicide."
Worse or better is IRRELEVANT. If you are trying to ennoble muslim
murderers, please spare me.
>In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
>bombers.
True. They were not atheists, though.
>In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
>Tamils in Sri Lanka,
Do you hereby maintain that the Tamils are atheists? Please let me
know.
1MAN4ALL
As I stated earlier, the fallacy is in trying to narrowly focus the
issue. One can argue that those who kill with knives should be
separated from those who use guns_ the idea being that guns lead
people to kill. But that's a false argument.
Difference between an "idiot" and a "moron":
An "idiot" is a person who suffers from idiocy, which Webster's
dictionary defines as "extreme mental retardation."
A "moron" is defined by Webster's as "a mildly mentally retarded
person."
So an idiot is worse than a moron. I am still trying to decide what
are you.
> >Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
> >than "Murder-suicide."
>
> Worse or better is IRRELEVANT. If you are trying to ennoble muslim
> murderers, please spare me.
It is relevant because you just cannot narrowly focus the issue. Just
because you are dropping bombs from airplanes and others use their
bodies, you are not any better. Both kill.
> >In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
> >bombers.
>
> True. They were not atheists, though.
That's a separate argument whether people who believe in "kami" are
atheists or not.
> >In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
> >Tamils in Sri Lanka,
>
> Do you hereby maintain that the Tamils are atheists? Please let me
> know.
They are Hindu, but Hindus in this newsgroup have repeatedly told us
that Hinduism and atheism are compatible. So I don't know. The point
is that no just Muslims but others have done similar things.
See also:
http://www.jfjfp.org/backgroundK.htm
drahcir
Please do not use words the meaning of which you obviously do not
comprehend, such as "fallacy".
>One can argue that those who kill with knives should be
>separated from those who use guns_ the idea being that guns lead
>people to kill. But that's a false argument.
>
>Difference between an "idiot" and a "moron":
>An "idiot" is a person who suffers from idiocy, which Webster's
>dictionary defines as "extreme mental retardation."
>A "moron" is defined by Webster's as "a mildly mentally retarded
>person."
>
>So an idiot is worse than a moron.
Very nice, however, I believe that you were not aware of this
difference when you used both in a sentence. The reason is that you
would have said something like "morons or EVEN idiots", to distinguish
between the two, but you did not. I therefore conclude that you used
both words for the reason that you say so many of the things you do --
you just like hearing yourself speak.
> I am still trying to decide what
>are you.
Let me know when you decide. I am still waiting for the difference
between killing and slaughtering.
>> >Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
>> >than "Murder-suicide."
>>
>> Worse or better is IRRELEVANT. If you are trying to ennoble muslim
>> murderers, please spare me.
>
>It is relevant because you just cannot narrowly focus the issue. Just
>because you are dropping bombs from airplanes and others use their
>bodies, you are not any better. Both kill.
1man, you are trying to turn this issue into a moral dilemma, and it
is not one. The original poster made a simple statement about
suicide-bombing and the fact that it was contingent upon theism, to
which you replied that there are plenty of killers-slaughterers who
are atheists. This reply does not address the original issue because
killing-slaughtering does not involve suicide. Now you are trying to
turn the issue around so that, in retrospect, your reply can have made
sense. Sorry, that's not the way debate works. Why must I constantly
address you as I would a child?
>
>> >In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
>> >bombers.
>>
>> True. They were not atheists, though.
>
>That's a separate argument whether people who believe in "kami" are
>atheists or not.
It's a separate argument???? It is crucial to the discussion, man!! If
they were theists, then they are not an example of atheists committing
murder-suicide. DUH!!. And it doesn't matter what "people believe".
They were not atheists as a group, period. There is plenty of footage
of japanese soldiers, both kami and not, but especially of kamis,
praying before their mission.
>
>> >In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
>> >Tamils in Sri Lanka,
>>
>> Do you hereby maintain that the Tamils are atheists? Please let me
>> know.
>
>They are Hindu, but Hindus in this newsgroup have repeatedly told us
>that Hinduism and atheism are compatible. So I don't know. The point
>is that no just Muslims but others have done similar things.
For the LAST time, the original poster did not say that
suicide-murderers were only muslim, he said that the act of
murder-suicide depended on belief in a reward by god(s). You replied,
quite irrelevantly that atheists commit murder, too. Murder is not
murder-suicide. UGHHH!!
1MAN4ALL
> >As I stated earlier, the fallacy is in trying to narrowly focus the
> >issue.
>
> Please do not use words the meaning of which you obviously do not
> comprehend, such as "fallacy".
Fallacy has two meanings.
1. A false or mistaken idea. [which is what I meant).
2. A logical argument with a false premise or inference.
> >One can argue that those who kill with knives should be
> >separated from those who use guns_ the idea being that guns lead
> >people to kill. But that's a false argument.
> >
> >Difference between an "idiot" and a "moron":
> >An "idiot" is a person who suffers from idiocy, which Webster's
> >dictionary defines as "extreme mental retardation."
> >A "moron" is defined by Webster's as "a mildly mentally retarded
> >person."
> >
> >So an idiot is worse than a moron.
>
> Very nice, however, I believe that you were not aware of this
> difference when you used both in a sentence. The reason is that you
> would have said something like "morons or EVEN idiots", to distinguish
> between the two, but you did not. I therefore conclude that you used
> both words for the reason that you say so many of the things you do --
> you just like hearing yourself speak.
LOL. Who do you think I am? A moron like you? Or should I say an
idiot?
> > I am still trying to decide what
> >are you.
>
> Let me know when you decide. I am still waiting for the difference
> between killing and slaughtering.
Slaughtering is killing with greater violence or killing in large
numbers.
> >> >Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
> >> >than "Murder-suicide."
> >>
> >> Worse or better is IRRELEVANT. If you are trying to ennoble muslim
> >> murderers, please spare me.
> >
> >It is relevant because you just cannot narrowly focus the issue. Just
> >because you are dropping bombs from airplanes and others use their
> >bodies, you are not any better. Both kill.
>
> 1man, you are trying to turn this issue into a moral dilemma, and it
> is not one. The original poster made a simple statement about
> suicide-bombing and the fact that it was contingent upon theism, to
> which you replied that there are plenty of killers-slaughterers who
> are atheists. This reply does not address the original issue because
> killing-slaughtering does not involve suicide. Now you are trying to
> turn the issue around so that, in retrospect, your reply can have made
> sense. Sorry, that's not the way debate works. Why must I constantly
> address you as I would a child?
The argument is faulty because atheists are a tiny minority as
compared to theists. So, proportionally, crimes committed by them
would also be lot less. For example, let's say that there are only 10
Bahais left on this planet. If they don't commit suicide, it cannot be
said that suicide among other people was due to their religion and the
reason that Bahais didn't kill themselves was because of their Bahai
faith. Do you see my point?
> >> >In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
> >> >bombers.
> >>
> >> True. They were not atheists, though.
> >
> >That's a separate argument whether people who believe in "kami" are
> >atheists or not.
>
> It's a separate argument???? It is crucial to the discussion, man!! If
> they were theists, then they are not an example of atheists committing
> murder-suicide. DUH!!. And it doesn't matter what "people believe".
> They were not atheists as a group, period. There is plenty of footage
> of japanese soldiers, both kami and not, but especially of kamis,
See my point above. I guess you don't know what "kami" means. Kami are
Shinto gods. A person would become Kami only after his death.
> >> >In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
> >> >Tamils in Sri Lanka,
> >>
> >> Do you hereby maintain that the Tamils are atheists? Please let me
> >> know.
> >
> >They are Hindu, but Hindus in this newsgroup have repeatedly told us
> >that Hinduism and atheism are compatible. So I don't know. The point
> >is that no just Muslims but others have done similar things.
>
> For the LAST time, the original poster did not say that
> suicide-murderers were only muslim, he said that the act of
> murder-suicide depended on belief in a reward by god(s). You replied,
> quite irrelevantly that atheists commit murder, too. Murder is not
> murder-suicide. UGHHH!!
See my answer above.
drahcir
>drahcir <1...@233435r.com> wrote in message
>
>> >As I stated earlier, the fallacy is in trying to narrowly focus the
>> >issue.
>>
>> Please do not use words the meaning of which you obviously do not
>> comprehend, such as "fallacy".
>
>Fallacy has two meanings.
>1. A false or mistaken idea. [which is what I meant).
>2. A logical argument with a false premise or inference.
Glad you learned the meaning of the word. Now perhaps you will not use
it incorrectly.
>
>> >One can argue that those who kill with knives should be
>> >separated from those who use guns_ the idea being that guns lead
>> >people to kill. But that's a false argument.
>> >
>> >Difference between an "idiot" and a "moron":
>> >An "idiot" is a person who suffers from idiocy, which Webster's
>> >dictionary defines as "extreme mental retardation."
>> >A "moron" is defined by Webster's as "a mildly mentally retarded
>> >person."
>> >
>> >So an idiot is worse than a moron.
>>
>> Very nice, however, I believe that you were not aware of this
>> difference when you used both in a sentence. The reason is that you
>> would have said something like "morons or EVEN idiots", to distinguish
>> between the two, but you did not. I therefore conclude that you used
>> both words for the reason that you say so many of the things you do --
>> you just like hearing yourself speak.
>
>LOL. Who do you think I am? A moron like you? Or should I say an
>idiot?
I think you are a very dangerous liar and a blind egotist. I thought
that was clear. Please let me know if you need further elucidation.
>
>> > I am still trying to decide what
>> >are you.
>>
>> Let me know when you decide. I am still waiting for the difference
>> between killing and slaughtering.
>
>Slaughtering is killing with greater violence or killing in large
>numbers.
See above, re hearing yourself speak.
>> >> >Killing people and GETTING AWAY with it is far worse
>> >> >than "Murder-suicide."
>> >>
>> >> Worse or better is IRRELEVANT. If you are trying to ennoble muslim
>> >> murderers, please spare me.
>> >
>> >It is relevant because you just cannot narrowly focus the issue. Just
>> >because you are dropping bombs from airplanes and others use their
>> >bodies, you are not any better. Both kill.
>>
>> 1man, you are trying to turn this issue into a moral dilemma, and it
>> is not one. The original poster made a simple statement about
>> suicide-bombing and the fact that it was contingent upon theism, to
>> which you replied that there are plenty of killers-slaughterers who
>> are atheists. This reply does not address the original issue because
>> killing-slaughtering does not involve suicide. Now you are trying to
>> turn the issue around so that, in retrospect, your reply can have made
>> sense. Sorry, that's not the way debate works. Why must I constantly
>> address you as I would a child?
>
>The argument is faulty because atheists are a tiny minority as
>compared to theists. So, proportionally, crimes committed by them
>would also be lot less.
You are making no sense. The above is irrelevant. I feel here
compelled to paste the dialogue which motivated this so that readers
will not get swept away by 1MAN's attempt to distract from the very
simple issue.
Cuthbert began:
>> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
>> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
>> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
>> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
>
>That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
>of people.
I made the point that killing or slaughtering is not murder-suicide,
therefore 1man's statement does not render false cuthbert's statement.
Five posts later, here we are, still unable to move on from that point
because 1man seems incapable of comprehending it.
> For example, let's say that there are only 10
>Bahais left on this planet. If they don't commit suicide, it cannot be
>said that suicide among other people was due to their religion and the
>reason that Bahais didn't kill themselves was because of their Bahai
>faith. Do you see my point?
No. Neither do you.
>
>
>> >> >In World War II, the Japanese used kamikaze
>> >> >bombers.
>> >>
>> >> True. They were not atheists, though.
>> >
>> >That's a separate argument whether people who believe in "kami" are
>> >atheists or not.
>>
>> It's a separate argument???? It is crucial to the discussion, man!! If
>> they were theists, then they are not an example of atheists committing
>> murder-suicide. DUH!!. And it doesn't matter what "people believe".
>> They were not atheists as a group, period. There is plenty of footage
>> of japanese soldiers, both kami and not, but especially of kamis,
>
>See my point above. I guess you don't know what "kami" means. Kami are
>Shinto gods. A person would become Kami only after his death.
Your point??? It seems you are confirming the fact that kamis (i use
the word as a shortened form of kamikaze, and thank you, I did not
know what "kami" means) were not atheists, which falsifies your
example of an atheist group which committed murder-suicide.
>> >> >In recent history, Suicide bombings were actually started by
>> >> >Tamils in Sri Lanka,
>> >>
>> >> Do you hereby maintain that the Tamils are atheists? Please let me
>> >> know.
>> >
>> >They are Hindu, but Hindus in this newsgroup have repeatedly told us
>> >that Hinduism and atheism are compatible. So I don't know. The point
>> >is that no just Muslims but others have done similar things.
>>
>> For the LAST time, the original poster did not say that
>> suicide-murderers were only muslim, he said that the act of
>> murder-suicide depended on belief in a reward by god(s). You replied,
>> quite irrelevantly that atheists commit murder, too. Murder is not
>> murder-suicide. UGHHH!!
>
>See my answer above.
Whatever. Muslim logic.
1MAN4ALL
> >1. A false or mistaken idea. [which is what I meant).
> >2. A logical argument with a false premise or inference.
>
> Glad you learned the meaning of the word. Now perhaps you will not use
> it incorrectly.
I already knew the meaning. It was you who didn't.
> >LOL. Who do you think I am? A moron like you? Or should I say an
> >idiot?
>
> I think you are a very dangerous liar and a blind egotist. I thought
> that was clear. Please let me know if you need further elucidation.
Dangerous? LOL. I live dangerously but I am only a danger to myself. A
blind egotist? That I am. Who isn't?
> >The argument is faulty because atheists are a tiny minority as
> >compared to theists. So, proportionally, crimes committed by them
> >would also be lot less.
>
> You are making no sense. The above is irrelevant. I feel here
> compelled to paste the dialogue which motivated this so that readers
> will not get swept away by 1MAN's attempt to distract from the very
> simple issue.
>
> Cuthbert began:
>
> >> God does not need to exist to be responsible. Committing
> >> murder-suicide is so inconsistent with human nature that it would not
> >> occur unless the perpetrators were persuaded -- truly or falsely -- that
> >> their actions will certainly be rewarded by God.
> >
> >That's false because atheists too have killed or slaughtered millions
> >of people.
> I made the point that killing or slaughtering is not murder-suicide,
> therefore 1man's statement does not render false cuthbert's statement.
> Five posts later, here we are, still unable to move on from that point
> because 1man seems incapable of comprehending it.
How many times do I have to say that the argument was bogus and
fallacious? Just because atheists are not well known for
suicide-murder_ mostly because there are so few of them and also
because they have not been in the same position as Palestinians_ it
does not mean that they are incapable of this type of violence.
Concentrate and try to understand. Better yet, take a course in logic.