Islamist call to destroy Egypts Pyramids

[Skybird]

It is a fact that Islam tries to reqwrite history by foreging it and by ignoring and even denying it as far as it was set before the time of Muhammad. That compares to the Creationists branch that seriuousl think the world was created just 6000 years ago and all fossiles found before where just placed there 6000 years ago by God, for whatever his reason was to do so.

It is also a known historic fact that monuments, and artifacts of foreign. non Muslim culture get drestroyed by Islkam rulers since always and up until today. The latest such act was the act done in Tiumbuktu just three weeks ago or so. Another famous act was the demoiltion of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan. But alreadxy at the time of the second Caliph theyx alraeyd were destzroying buildings and temples and mopnuments of other cultures when they did not fit into their Muslim view of history.

The call to destroy the pyramides is not new, and in fact it was tried. However, in recent decades, when Egypt may habe been a dictatorship, but at least was not fundamentalist, it was prevented by the govenrments since it is a tourist attraction and thus a cash collector. Until here the military still tries to guard a damn from the fundamentalist tide. If they fail in that, everything is possible. The mindset certainly is insane enough to want to destroy the pyramides.

I have not read the linked article, just the headline to see what it was about. It's no new stuff to me. So for this post do not hold that writer responsible, but me.

[MH]

Destroying pyramids is old news...some crazy salafists there.

[MH]

The problem with the hysterical chimps who write this stuff is that they will belive any old garbage that justifies their reason for hating someone or something, all it takes is for a a handful of retarded islamic radicals to suggest something controversial, and before you know it - it becomes "THE MUSLIMS" as if all 2 billion of them are conspiring together (because as we know, they all get on so well with each other dont they? )

Those things are already happening in some other less important Muslim countries.
Does it fuel hate or fear?It surly does by it doesn't mean that things are not happening...
You can try to dismiss them and keep on loving everyone.. do you ?lol...thats option too.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by MH

You can try to dismiss them and keep on loving everyone.. do you ?lol...thats option too.

Your are implying that im either a christian or a liberal hippy by the sounds of it.
Anyway I'll choose to love or hate someone based on their own actions, not by the actions of those i can associate with them.
There are two types of people on this planet, nice ones and A-holes. Relegion or there lack of, seems to make very little difference as to which one they are.
Islam doesn't really teach people to blow stuff up and commit murder any more than Christianity, Communism or Neo Conservatism does. Yet they've all done it in the name of whatever they see as justice.

I guess its much easier to point the finger than it is look in the mirror once in a while.

These guys are A-holes, what was the justification for peppering a minaret exactly, are all American Soliders A-holes? of course they are not!
Im just saying, its not just 'Islam' that does these things.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I guess its much easier to point the finger than it is look in the mirror once in a while.

These guys are A-holes, are all American Soliders A-holes? of course they are not!

Two questions. Was there a military reason why they did that? Islamic fighter sare known to hide within mosques to evade enemy fire or to prevent destruction of ammo stocks.

Second, what makes a deciding difference is whether or not the ideology of the actor (the US military, Islam) are supporting acts of vandalism for the mere sake of vandalism, or not. Islam not only supports but I would say demands the derstrtuction of other cultural artifacts that are not to be tolerated beside the only god there is, Allah. The ideology thus is the problem, not just a group of monkeys acting isolated.

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Your are implying that im either a christian or a liberal hippy by the sounds of it.
Anyway I'll choose to love or hate someone based on their own actions,
There are two types of people on this planet, nice ones and A-holes. Relegion or there lack of, seems to make very little difference as to which one they are.
Islam doesn't really teach people to blow stuff up and commit murder any more than Christianity, Communism or Neo Conservatism does. Yet they've all done it in the name whatever they see as justice.

I guess its much easier to point the finger than it is look in the mirror once in a while.

I agree with you never less Islam is very convenient ideology to be used for violence combined with some average backwardness of Muslims.
What christians,communists or nazis did in the past is inexcusable but now the deal is about what Muslims do in the present in the name of religion.
It is issue in present time....
Any way just because some nutcases did some crazy stuff in Europe does not make it all tolerable.

If you compere Islam to communism yourself then you probably can spot the problems by yourself...not asking you to hate every Muslim you see though.


..........

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Two questions. Was there a military reason why they did that? Islamic fighter sare known to hide within mosques to evade enemy fire or to prevent destruction of ammo stocks.

Second, what makes a deciding difference is whether or not the ideology of the actor (the US military, Islam) are supporting acts of vandalism for the mere sake of vandalism, or not. Islam not only supports but I would say demands the derstrtuction of other cultural artifacts that are not to be tolerated beside the only god there is, Allah. The ideology thus is the problem, not just a group of monkeys acting isolated.

1) Are you going to tell me there 'could be' justifable miltary reasons for ever single isolated attrocity carried out by our side in Iraq? The torture, the rapes and god know what else? In that country we invaded against our own international laws because they had invisible WMDs? Of course the majority of Our Troops were not doing these things, may well have done so based on an ideology that muslims are bad. there may not be a holy book ont hat but its still an ideology.

2) Problem with the Islamic ideology (much like all the major relegions) is that its written in such a way that is wide open to mis-interpretation and bad translation.
The Islamic Ideology you like to present is simply 'your' interpretation of it (nothing wrong with that mind you)
but heres my question, why should I trust at face value, an interpretation of Islam from someone that I know has very low opinion of Islam? If i want to learn about cars, I dont go and ask Green Peace do I?
For all I know you might just be picking out the parts that support your distain, and leave out the parts that dont, (like a 9/11 truther) Im not saying you ARE doing this - just that its pretty typical of human behaviour, thats all.

You might tell me I should look at some of the evil acts carried out by muslims, (and I freely admit that there are plenty of them too) The problem is, that they are perfectly proportional to evil acts perpitrated by non-muslims.
So therefore, the only problems I have with muslims, is the same problem I have with the rest of mankind. I see nothing that makes them particularly more monsterous than anyone else.

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I guess its much easier to point the finger than it is look in the mirror once in a while.

These guys are A-holes, what was the justification for peppering a minaret exactly, are all American Soliders A-holes? of course they are not!
Im just saying, its not just 'Islam' that does these things.

There was this policy not to enter mosques ...never ever not to hurt local people's feelings till mosques turned out to be ammo dumps and terrorists hideouts.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by MH

There was this policy not to enter mosques ...never ever not to hurt local people's feelings till mosques turned out to be ammo dumps and terrorists hideouts.

Thats all good and well, but there are many many examples of wrong doing from our side. We invaded a country based on a lie, and our values and ethics are pretty accademic when we are senslessly murdering thousands of innocent people and maiming thousands more, deosn't matter how we dress it up, we are not much better or worse than 'them overall. Just different.

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Thats all good and well, but there are many many examples of wrong doing from our side. We invaded a country based on a lie, and our values and ethics are pretty accademic when we are senslessly murdering thousands of innocent people and maiming thousands more, deosn't matter how we dress it up, we are not much better or worse than 'them overall. Just different.

Many Iraqis had high hopes with the Americans but other internal and external interest kicked in....in retrospect it could be much better to have conscious clean and let them kill each other.
this would actually had saved some American lives.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by MH

Many Iraqis had high hopes with the Americans but other internal and external interest kicked in....in retrospect it could be much better to have conscious clean and let them kill each other.

Unfortunatley your are probably right.

[MH]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Unfortunatley your are probably right.

Good then... don't play it some sort of humanitarian do good er concerned with well being of humanity lol
This whole anti American campaign is wrapped in that crap therefore a lie again.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

1) Are you going to tell me there 'could be' justifable miltary reasons for ever single isolated attrocity carried out by our side in Iraq? The torture, the rapes and god know what else? In that country we invaded against our own international laws because they had invisible WMDs? Of course the majority of Our Troops were not doing these things, may well have done so based on an ideology that muslims are bad. there may not be a holy book ont hat but its still an ideology.

What part of the question exactly did you not understand?

2) Problem with the Islamic ideology (much like all the major relegions) is that its written in such a way that is wide open to mis-interpretation and bad translation.
The Islamic Ideology you like to present is simply 'your' interpretation of it (nothing wrong with that mind you)
but heres my question, why should I trust at face value, an interpretation of Islam from someone that I know has very low opinion of Islam? If i want to learn about cars, I dont go and ask Green Peace do I?
For all I know you might just be picking out the parts that support your distain, and leave out the parts that dont, (like a 9/11 truther) Im not saying you ARE doing this - just that its pretty typical of human behaviour, thats all.

It is not as rnadom as yiou claim it to be. First, the Quran is filled with contradicting lines, these derive - for the vast majority - from the fact of different times of origin when what Muhammad said the passage in question. This has never stopped both fundamentalist mainstream and the so-called moderate islam that you think exists from proceeding thoruhg history ion the fundamentalist manner. This may be becasue of another fact, that is that the socalled abrogation principle gained consensus amongst all major Muslim juristzic schools and lineages already in 9th or 10th century. It says that in case of contradiction between two quotes from different passages of the Quran, the one that has been given later (was created later and thus is newer) should be given superiority over the older one. Muhammad turned the more violent and aggressive the elder he becam and the more successful his conquest was running. So do the math and add 1 and 1 together. Most violent passages in the Quran are the later ones. They thus have dominance over older quotes.

The whole book is, like the bible a confused collection of contradictions and a bullride through the timeline, because the Suras are nbot sorted in chronological order, but by length. That allows Islam to blind the unknowing infidels and giove one quote toat tells them qhat they want to hear, while acting on behalf of another one that means them evil. The whole communication from Islam'S side is an endless stream of one-eyed halftruths and deceptive opportunistic baits meant to mislead the intended victims, the prey. And the prey is us.

In case of doubt, judge it by the histoic record of deed, act and behavior. And for that dark historic record it has on its behalf, I hold it responsible, no matter what they tell me about that I misunderstand it, and that it was meant differently than it was carried out, and and and. I simply don't listen anymore, I simply do mnot care anymore. I'm not buying this bull. I seer the disatrous trail Islam has left in world'S history and that it has set every place into flames where it arrives and that it destroyed or tried to destroy every culture it came into contact with, and that it bullies against everybody, and claims everything for itself. That is what counts, and that is what decides whether I see it as tolerant, multicultural and peaceful, or as violent, intolerant and supremacistic. The deed is what counts, and even more when the deed is in conformity with the demands of the ideology that motivates and justifies the deed. Here, I see conformity between both.

And so I see Islam as what it is. Inhumane, intolerant, aggressive, violent and totalitarian. It is in its historic record of behavior. It is in it's ideology and in its scripture. More is not needed to form an opinion.

It is also a known historic fact that monuments, and artifacts of foreign. non Muslim culture get drestroyed by Islkam rulers since always and up until today. The latest such act was the act done in Tiumbuktu just three weeks ago or so. Another famous act was the demoiltion of the giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan. But alreadxy at the time of the second Caliph theyx alraeyd were destzroying buildings and temples and mopnuments of other cultures when they did not fit into their Muslim view of history.

It didn't take Sky long to chime in with his usual line of rubbish were he manages to contradict himself in very short order.

The problem with the hysterical chimps who write this stuff is that they will belive any old garbage that justifies their reason for hating someone or something, all it takes is for a a handful of retarded islamic radicals to suggest something controversial, and before you know it - it becomes "THE MUSLIMS" as if all 2 billion of them are conspiring together (because as we know, they all get on so well with each other dont they? )

Nicely done
Game set and match
Though I hope you are not besmirching any other chimps when you refer to the hyterical ones

It is not as rnadom as yiou claim it to be. First, the Quran is filled with contradicting lines, these derive - for the vast majority - from the fact of different times of origin when what Muhammad said the passage in question. This has never stopped both fundamentalist mainstream and the so-called moderate islam that you think exists from proceeding thoruhg history ion the fundamentalist manner. This may be becasue of another fact, that is that the socalled abrogation principle gained consensus amongst all major Muslim juristzic schools and lineages already in 9th or 10th century. It says that in case of contradiction between two quotes from different passages of the Quran, the one that has been given later (was created later and thus is newer) should be given superiority over the older one. Muhammad turned the more violent and aggressive the elder he becam and the more successful his conquest was running. So do the math and add 1 and 1 together. Most violent passages in the Quran are the later ones. They thus have dominance over older quotes.

Right.

The whole book is, like the bible a confused collection of contradictions and a bullride through the timeline, because the Suras are nbot sorted in chronological order, but by length.

So skybird just trashed his own arguement and then topped it by repeating some of his bull that was totally trashed before
"I has looked briefly at a german translation and some bits at a rough count looked longer than others sort of so ya I is right as i had written for many years this"

In case of doubt, judge it by the histoic record of deed, act and behavior.

crazy man, absolutely far out crazy.
If in doubt about a text you look at the text.