... Glimmers of news bring hope. But not for your tired perspective. Palestinians should blame people like you for their suffering.

Agreed concerning Matt's tirade.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians are too easy an excuse for continued conflict for those wishing to stir up their own causes.

It certainly isn't for the benefit of the Palestinians or anyone else in that region... How long before the perpetrators tire or die?

Thousands upon thousands of years it would seem.

Well...

From the example of the UK Northern Island "Troubles", it will require the main perpetrators to survive into middle age with their lives and power intact to then be able to 'retire' into politics...

That drops it down to about 30 years if any one terrorist (group) can hold on for that long.

Shame Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini wasn't able to hold onto power as he moved very late into politics as a solution to gain peace.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?
...

Are you aware that if you go to google and enter def:prevarication you will get the definition of the word? If not you are now. I suggest you try it.

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?
...

Are you aware that if you go to google and enter def:prevarication you will get the definition of the word? If not you are now. I suggest you try it.

Looks like prevarication with added procrastination.


Simply:

The simple question is:

Do YOU, that is yourself, condone the arbitrary stoning to death of women? Or the stoning to death of anyone for that matter?

Yes, no, or do you need that question breaking down by region to allow for the distinction of whether Arab or not?


Sorry, no discussion with you on any other subject until you can clear your soul of that one small question with a clear direct answer.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

The simple question is:

Do YOU, that is yourself, condone the arbitrary stoning to death of women? Or the stoning to death of anyone for that matter?

In my first response to this I referred to it as a biennial event. By that anyone familiar with the subject should know that is about as often as it occurs in a country of 75+ million people with one assumes the usual frequency of propinquity among among the general populace -- nothing propinques like propinquity. So it is a very rare event in the first place, not the adultery or rape but the sentence.

Further after the western media and the entreaties and the stern diplomatic notes the sentence is always commuted. One could easily get the opinion this sort of thing is choreographed. The rarity of the sentence is obvious.

The west also immediately ignores the rarity and never looks into the details but always assumes the innocence of woman as though this were the 19th where a women never cries rape unless it is true. How dare Iran impugn the honor of a woman even if she is a blackmailing slut.

But maybe I am wrong. Please recite the trial transcript for the testimony which shows this is an inappropriate sentence in accordance with Iran's legal system.

And if there is a problem with the legal system of today's Iran one should show it is more primitive than it was under the Shah or as it is in Saudi where such an execution did in fact take place a few years ago.

Or do you simply have too much slime and bile to answer anything honestly?

Regards,
Martin

Your preposition to my honesty does leave me in a quandary as outlined above.

If in fact you wish to the legitimacy of the sentence you certainly need to go into trial itself and the principles of law which applied.

If you wish to go into the inequities of the law in the Iranian legal system I suggest you get an expert in that legal system to log on here to expand upon that theme unless you feel qualified to do so yourself -- and ignorance is not a qualification. All legal systems are unfair. All legal systems appear not only unfair in some aspects to those subject to it but also in comparison to other systems. The most ready condemnation of legal systems is always that of other countries.

It easiest to condemn the legal systems of other countries. Are you aware Muslim countries in the middle east show the superiority of their legal system by citing US crime statistics? In almost every category the per capita crime rate is on the order of a hundred times higher than in their countries. In the few cases where it is not such as drugs it is only a few tens of times higher. And in non-crime areas they point to the unwed mother statistics as evidence of our primitive social system. They also point to our lax drug laws to the prevalence of drug usage while most in the US say they are too harsh.

Perhaps I have gone on a bit long on this and perhaps I should not have made a second reply but while I do not support judging another country by ourselves I do have a problem with a country which claims to be not only western but to share US ideals and which then men beat an American woman because she will not sit in the back of the bus with the women. And the police cannot find the perps and takes the word of the perps that they were not there over the identification of their victim.

I have a problem with a country that has taken billions in US charity and then tells the US to F off in the interest of avoiding peace.

I have a problem with a country that announces a good thing in English and says no such thing in Hebrew and a month later the starvation blockade is still in place.

Nothing in Iran can bother the US in the least. Let them have nukes, Mutually Assured Destruction works. Its nearest neighbors, China, Pakistan, Russia, India and Israel are all nuclear powers and only Israel has its loincloths in a bunch.

Israel is the only country known to have sold nukes and that was to Apartheid South Africa. Some 16 years ago South Africa did a video piece with a government official showing where they were stored. Just a couple of weeks ago some of the details of the negotiations were published in Israel by Jewish newspapers.

Your dishonesty is obvious in your preference to "win" the arguement(as in be the last one to SHUT UP)

Are you not aware this is a political discussion in a political newsgroup? That I do what you do is hardly grounds for condemnation of my imitation of you. It is a cheap tactic but izziehuggers have nothing but cheap tactics.

Any religion left to dictate laws is flawed. And the extremes it will go to are well written through out history. Current events such as stonings serve as twisted reminders as humans have EVOLVED (well some have).

So is beating a women who will not sit in the back of the bus. So is a country which permits this bus segregation to not only exist but to continue and to encourage its spread.

As to evolved you are talking no more than a changed legal system and cultural views of morality. It was only in the 1950s in the US that men stopped wearing a head covering and almost ten years later before women stopped. It was only in the 1930s that women has a better than average chance of gaining custody of children in a divorce. It was only in the 60s that Blacks did not have to ride in the back of the bus.

When law is selectively applied to effectively exterminate those who do not agree with you, well people get a lot more agreeable. Wonder why.

And when the color of law is used to steal land from its lawful owners who hold legitimate land title that is a reason why no Palestinian exile will ever agree to make nice with Israel. Jewish justice is obviously self-serving and contrary to the justice Jews demand for themselves.

Impune the honor is far from a death sentence. If it was there would be no former politicians. And this section would be a lot quieter.

I have no problem with executing politicians if that is where you are going with this.

I will not go into all the things you "have a problem with". You have too many to recount. Might I suggest seeing a doctor about some of them?

You may suggest but there is only one thing being discussed here no matter how far you go in an attempt to divert attention from the MASSACRE on the Mave Mamara perpetrated by Jews who also happen to be Israelis.

You have a problem with Israel. You want to drag the rest of the world in on in to one side of the mutual destructive behavior.

The entire world has a problem with Israel. Have you not noticed there is only one country in the world which has a capital which is not recognized by any other country?

You promote Shriah law over legislatition.

As you know I have never done that why do you say it? I agree there are small minds which are incapable of seeing a difference between understanding and supporting. You have never appeared to be that dumb.

You admit you would rather be perceived as right than to actually be honest.

I said this is a political newsgroup and political rules apply. You are also promoting and supporting the MASSACRE by Israel using political rules -- refusing to in fact discuss the actual subject after realizing the isreality of Hasbara is BS. Why do you think you can defend Israel by diversion?

You admit to not wanting to listen to anything beyond your (very small) point of reference. You deny well known world events.

I agreed I use the narrow viewpoint of Jewish and Israeli news sources. May I ask where you find materials that do not damn Israel? One would think from your posts that you have a source which does not damn Israel but you have yet to tell me what those sources are. Please tell me.

You deny massive portions of history. You deny anything which does not
fit into your fragile belief system.

You mean when you demonstrated you have no idea what the UN actually said about Israel after you brought it up? Your continue to display your inability to address the least factual information about this massacre or even pretend to address its happened outside the lawful naval exclusion zone. Why will you not address the obvious issues?

If you do not look from more than one angle, you can not see what is going on. If you will not look, or listen, you will not perceive.

Yet every time you bring up something that appears to be factual I recite the real facts and you never object to my recitation. I would expect if you a legitimate basis for your opinions you would be able to present those facts. Instead you devolve to logical fallacy of personal attack.

This would conclude either you are Insane, or a Liar. Take a pick, but nothing else fits.

Your inability to do anything but personal attack in light of facts you do not post disagreement with is indicative of a person unable to deal with logic and reason -- or one as ignorant of international matters as the average American.

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?
...

Are you aware that if you go to google and enter def:prevarication you will get the definition of the word? If not you are now. I suggest you try it.

I do not need to google that. He called you a Liar.

---

Janice

Matt,

In your worst of your rants, can you possibly defend this?

Pray tell how does showing racism and bigotry in one country become defense of another?

How does showing rampant bigotry in Israel which describes itself as a modern democracy and the outpost of western ideals in the middle east be compared with a backward country under control of religious extremists?

Is it not proper to expect the behavior of a country to match its claims about itself?

In this case, Iran is living up to its claims about itself.

Either Israel is not living up to the standards it has set for itself or it is making false claims.

From the news I read in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post it is fact that Israel is making false claims.

Lovely side step from a direct question.

It is elementary to public debate that one does not let the opposition reformulate the premise of the debate in their favor.

Are you new at this?

Not at all. And for a political debate, you are quite correct. Being "perceived" to win is the entire value, not being correct, not being the most intelligent, not in being honest.

1:I presume the lack of honesty as a requirement is why you are trying to defend the indefensible Israel in a political newsgroup. When a lie is proposed as fact like Czechoslovakia was ever part of the Soviet Union exposition of it is expected or you can remove that from the dishonesty category and put it into the unintelligent category if you wish.

However if you wish to convince people of things and you do not own the media, you need to be rational, intelligent, back up your claims, and If you wish to be listened to you will need to listen to others. The last portion, you are unwilling or unable to do.

2:If one could reason with Zionists there would be no Zionists. You propose something which in applicable to the Zionists mindset of murder and theft as instruments of Jewish advancement. Again, read Jabotinsky to see it all laid out.

The premise was simple to your proclimation against hebrew law, and for muslim shariah law. Claiming the latter is superior to the former. Stoning of women for adultery to western civilization went at the window at around 29 AD. "Let he who is without sin" etc. Even without mercy you would need to stone BOTH parties to be "Just". Barbaric, but "Just".

3:I merely observed Shiriah law is more civilized than Torah law. IT is some seven centuries more recent than the Torah and had the benefit of exposure to both Greek and Roman law. I was not talking about western law or the ravings of a heretic boiling in excrement in hell but of Torah. You certainly cannot have misread that. Again the dishonesty factor arises. The only western law point I raised was related to the a non-Jew being convicted of rape in Israel because he was not a Jew. That hasn't been western law since the civil rights movement which ended the last of it.

Which furthers my point, no government should belong to any religion. History is filled with the genocides that follow when that does happen. Jews and Muslims and Pagans alike were slaughtered during the inquisitions. It is long past time to move beyond that.

4:And in the Karaite Inquisition in Spain about a century before the famous one Jews slaughtered Jews. That is the way things go. For a fact in the real Inquisition only false converts were punished. That was the way the law read. They were given the choice of convert or leave. If they were real converts falsely punished that is a different issue but then they were Christians when falsely punished.

Side steps occur when the facts are inconvenient and you do not wish to face them. And I do understand why. A fragile belief system is a dangerous thing to mess with. Many lives have been lost from the rage that inevitably follows.

5:I deal only in what the facts really are without sugar-coating and without your nonsense of saying Jews were slaughtered in the Inquistion when the only way that could have happened would have been if they had falsely converted in violation of civil law. Whatever you think you learned from Mel Brooks needs be forgotten.

Let me see if I can summarize for you.

1: you again avoid the direct question. Despite reference given to the facts you site, That the "warsaw pact" countries(i.e. Soviet Block under the leadership of the soviet union did in fact invade Chez. in 1968.. you continue to deny it, and indeed point towards it to indicate I am lying. Left unanswered,
I can only assume that this is your way of saying "yes, it is okay for me to lie.".

2:you justify this by calling us(indirectly) Zionists, which you have further designated as thieves and murderers. Very creative. But not convincing. You then attempt to drag us into your pitiful mindset, by trying to involved everyone as either "right(meaning they agree with you in this case)" or "Zionist". I repeat, Isreal is a country. It will continue to be. DEAL WITH IT. If you have problems with them, deal with them.

3: I observed Shiriah law, Judaic law, Vatican law, ANY religiously based law is inherently flawed. As is all law. No law which is absolute can be just.
Your OBSESSION with Israel is frightful, ill placed, and does not serve you nor anyone else well.

4: The inquisitions went on(and off) for centuries. All in the name of religion and some idiots exclusive view on "god". Google "The Burning Times".
Most of the world has gotten beyond religious law. We will try and wait for you to catch up. Are some principles taken from religions? of course! There is good to be found in almost any religion. Such a shame we need to wade through such massive amount of SEWAGE to find it. Such as mohammads beheading someone for not converting to Islam.

5: by 1 and 2, you have no interest in FACTS. Denying Catholicism killed anyone
who would not convert("savages" is the term often used) is completely false,
and you have provided no references to support such an outlandish claim.

---

Janice

You Folks are getting way off topic of "The Massacre of the Gaza Aid Flotilla".

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

I will not go into all the things you "have a problem with". You have too many to recount. Might I suggest seeing a doctor about some of them?

1: You may suggest but there is only one thing being discussed here no matter how far you go in an attempt to divert attention from the MASSACRE on the Mave Mamara perpetrated by Jews who also happen to be Israelis.

You have a problem with Israel. You want to drag the rest of the world in on in to one side of the mutual destructive behavior.

2:The entire world has a problem with Israel. Have you not noticed there is only one country in the world which has a capital which is not recognized by any other country?

You promote Shriah law over legislatition.

3:As you know I have never done that why do you say it? I agree there are small minds which are incapable of seeing a difference between understanding and supporting. You have never appeared to be that dumb.

You admit you would rather be perceived as right than to actually be honest.

4:I said this is a political newsgroup and political rules apply. You are also promoting and supporting the MASSACRE by Israel using political rules -- refusing to in fact discuss the actual subject after realizing the isreality of Hasbara is BS. Why do you think you can defend Israel by diversion?

You admit to not wanting to listen to anything beyond your (very small) point of reference. You deny well known world events.

5: I agreed I use the narrow viewpoint of Jewish and Israeli news sources. May I ask where you find materials that do not damn Israel? One would think from your posts that you have a source which does not damn Israel but you have yet to tell me what those sources are. Please tell me.

You deny massive portions of history. You deny anything which does not
fit into your fragile belief system.

6:You mean when you demonstrated you have no idea what the UN actually said about Israel after you brought it up? Your continue to display your inability to address the least factual information about this massacre or even pretend to address its happened outside the lawful naval exclusion zone. Why will you not address the obvious issues?

If you do not look from more than one angle, you can not see what is going on. If you will not look, or listen, you will not perceive.

7:Yet every time you bring up something that appears to be factual I recite the real facts and you never object to my recitation. I would expect if you a legitimate basis for your opinions you would be able to present those facts. Instead you devolve to logical fallacy of personal attack.

This would conclude either you are Insane, or a Liar. Take a pick, but nothing else fits.

8:Your inability to do anything but personal attack in light of facts you do not post disagreement with is indicative of a person unable to deal with logic and reason -- or one as ignorant of international matters as the average American.

1:Jury is still out on what happened. The fact a blockade was being run is not in question though. A blockade does not have to be inside territorial waters.

2: news flash: you are not the entire world. that would fall under "Prevarication". The entire world does not have a problem with Isreal.
Right now we are more concerned about self righteous zealots blowing things up

3: So do you, or do you not support Shariah law? Yes/no. Because you have not been clear on that. My view has been expressed "ad nauseum". Any religious government is BAD. Lack of religious tolerance is BAD. Do I need to reference a dictionary to define "BAD" for you? Is that in your definition of what "True" is? Or do we need to define what "IS" is.
<edit: hit post button by mistake>

4: In principle, I see a blockade as an act of war. I do not take war lightly. But war between Israel/Palestine is not even news worthy. And shippings running a blockade can not expect to do so unscathed. That is STUPID.

5: see post remark #1. It is still being investigated. Not left to you as prosecutor/judge/jury/executioner. Again, thank gods.

6 Basically, I do not care. it is not even news worthy. Obviously, the intent was there, the preparations were there. So being boarded and potentially siezed should have been a surprise to no one.*yawn*. Just keep killing each other. Wake me when you are done.

7 You have presented.. um.. almost no facts. But.. I have time. Let us do this again tomorrow ok?

8: you have called virtually everyone that disagrees with you a Zionist, and by extension a Thief and Murderer. You have no room to talk on name calling.

---

Janice

You Folks are getting way off topic of "The Massacre of the Gaza Aid Flotilla".

Jim--Matt keeps making statements to purposely divert the discussion as he can't answer questions. I have been watching Soft try to answer his statements--then he calls others Zionists (an insult BTW) and diverts it even further off course.

---

Prediction: Isreal shoots back.

And on it goes.

---

Janice

Sorry for the disturbance.... I just merged the second of three threads that are the same topic (the third is hidden). A part of the reason for this is that someone "thought" and then there were three... In the course of events, in the lack of proper rebuttal, comments that are consider "flames/namecalling happened." You Got My, the other Moderators Attention.

FLAMES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE in the Politics Forum! They show that the person caught doing it has lost whatever arguement. Just pity the person and not post anymore. The Thread will die and move into history.

Discussion (non specific) of Moderation (moderator actions) is allowed in the Political Forum. The caution is that when you open the can of worms, it stinks and you are going to gain the attention of everyone around you. Depending on what you say it will result in the post being hidden. If you continue to push the issue it results in a Ban. The Sad part is the "people" that get into that situation do so Full knowing what may happen... They do it for a reason.

So yes, there is a reason I do not post here... When complaints are lodged, I am unbiased... I can moderate in an unbiased fashion.

Thank You, for your time

Regards

Pappa

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

,,,

Let me see if I can summarize for you.

1: you again avoid the direct question. Despite reference given to the facts you site, That the "warsaw pact" countries(i.e. Soviet Block under the leadership of the soviet union did in fact invade Chez. in 1968.. you continue to deny it, and indeed point towards it to indicate I am lying. Left unanswered,
I can only assume that this is your way of saying "yes, it is okay for me to lie.".

You said it became part of the Soviet Union because of the invasion. That is nonsense.

2:you justify this by calling us(indirectly) Zionists, which you have further designated as thieves and murderers. Very creative. But not convincing. You then attempt to drag us into your pitiful mindset, by trying to involved everyone as either "right(meaning they agree with you in this case)" or "Zionist". I repeat, Isreal is a country. It will continue to be. DEAL WITH IT. If you have problems with them, deal with them.

I recited the objective of Zionism and cited the Revisionist movement of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, to use force to drive Palestinians off their land. That is by definition murder and theft as the established policy of Zionism.

3: I observed Shiriah law, Judaic law, Vatican law, ANY religiously based law is inherently flawed. As is all law. No law which is absolute can be just.
Your OBSESSION with Israel is frightful, ill placed, and does not serve you nor anyone else well.

Do not be frightened little girl. The subject is the massare of the Gaza Aid Flotilla which was perpetrated by Israel. It is hardly an obsession to stay on topic. In fact staying on topic is elementary courtesy as to do otherwise is to attempt to hijack a thread.

4: The inquisitions went on(and off) for centuries. All in the name of religion and some idiots exclusive view on "god". Google "The Burning Times".
Most of the world has gotten beyond religious law. We will try and wait for you to catch up. Are some principles taken from religions? of course! There is good to be found in almost any religion. Such a shame we need to wade through such massive amount of SEWAGE to find it. Such as mohammads beheading someone for not converting to Islam.

Not only did I point out that you were wrong about the nature of the Inquisition made famous by Mel Brooks (whom you appear to consider an authoritative historian) and Monty Python but I told you what its purpose was. Then you repeated your original false statement. What am I supposed to do? Take your ahistorical nonsense as fact? And what does your response have to do with my rejection of the nonsense you posted?

5: by 1 and 2, you have no interest in FACTS. Denying Catholicism killed anyone who would not convert("savages" is the term often used) is completely false, and you have provided no references to support such an outlandish claim.

In fact it was the civil government of Spain which gave Jews unlike the Muslims the choice of staying or leaving. A condition of staying was to convert to Christianity. False conversions were a violation of that civil edict. All executions which resulted from the findings of the Inquisition were carried out by the civil government.

If you ever take the time to research the matter you will learn the facts.

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?
...

Are you aware that if you go to google and enter def:prevarication you will get the definition of the word? If not you are now. I suggest you try it.

I do not need to google that. He called you a Liar.

I am aware but, at the risk of a slight digression, I requested evidence of that. Such evidence is generally a quotation of what was said followed by a recitation of reality to show the conflict between the two. I am still waiting. One should not call names if one cannot back them up.

,,,

Let me see if I can summarize for you.

1: you again avoid the direct question. Despite reference given to the facts you site, That the "warsaw pact" countries(i.e. Soviet Block under the leadership of the soviet union did in fact invade Chez. in 1968.. you continue to deny it, and indeed point towards it to indicate I am lying. Left unanswered,
I can only assume that this is your way of saying "yes, it is okay for me to lie.".

You said it became part of the Soviet Union because of the invasion. That is nonsense.

2:you justify this by calling us(indirectly) Zionists, which you have further designated as thieves and murderers. Very creative. But not convincing. You then attempt to drag us into your pitiful mindset, by trying to involved everyone as either "right(meaning they agree with you in this case)" or "Zionist". I repeat, Isreal is a country. It will continue to be. DEAL WITH IT. If you have problems with them, deal with them.

I recited the objective of Zionism and cited the Revisionist movement of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, to use force to drive Palestinians off their land. That is by definition murder and theft as the established policy of Zionism.

3: I observed Shiriah law, Judaic law, Vatican law, ANY religiously based law is inherently flawed. As is all law. No law which is absolute can be just.
Your OBSESSION with Israel is frightful, ill placed, and does not serve you nor anyone else well.

Do not be frightened little girl. The subject is the massare of the Gaza Aid Flotilla which was perpetrated by Israel. It is hardly an obsession to stay on topic. In fact staying on topic is elementary courtesy as to do otherwise is to attempt to hijack a thread.

4: The inquisitions went on(and off) for centuries. All in the name of religion and some idiots exclusive view on "god". Google "The Burning Times".
Most of the world has gotten beyond religious law. We will try and wait for you to catch up. Are some principles taken from religions? of course! There is good to be found in almost any religion. Such a shame we need to wade through such massive amount of SEWAGE to find it. Such as mohammads beheading someone for not converting to Islam.

Not only did I point out that you were wrong about the nature of the Inquisition made famous by Mel Brooks (whom you appear to consider an authoritative historian) and Monty Python but I told you what its purpose was. Then you repeated your original false statement. What am I supposed to do? Take your ahistorical nonsense as fact? And what does your response have to do with my rejection of the nonsense you posted?

5: by 1 and 2, you have no interest in FACTS. Denying Catholicism killed anyone who would not convert("savages" is the term often used) is completely false, and you have provided no references to support such an outlandish claim.

In fact it was the civil government of Spain which gave Jews unlike the Muslims the choice of staying or leaving. A condition of staying was to convert to Christianity. False conversions were a violation of that civil edict. All executions which resulted from the findings of the Inquisition were carried out by the civil government.

If you ever take the time to research the matter you will learn the facts.

1: after the invasion of Czechoslovakia occured by the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact in 1968.
When did they withdraw?
2: The entire "zionist" movement was to establish the state of Israel. This is now history. Hence the meaning ceased to exist.

3: I am far from a little girl, and again take offense to your name calling/dismissive attitude. Hint: I consider myself more than 50% of a witness. The blockade is an act of war, which in reality has never ended.
And until both sides seek peace, never will.

4:more dismissal? If you honestly believe the knowledge I have came from movies,
you are more self deluded than even I thought. But actually I just think this is comments from someone unequipped to discuss rationally. I am not arguing numbers. But for you to say such never existed, is to ignore all historical information. Genocides continued centuries later into the Americas. And this
remains the kind of activity we expect when religious governments are left unchecked.

5: so your argument is, they did not kill "as many". So lose everything, believe or die is more human. Since the first choice was added by some?
This makes no difference to the facts. Muslims could have run before the battle just as easily. The fact they were there meant they would not run either. When most people are given a choice of agree or die, most will agree.
At least in word. In that time period, the civil government and the church were one and the same.

And this is the kind of action most of the world has come to expect if ANY religion holds full power in a country. I keep looking for exceptions, but I have not found any. Have you?

---

Janice

Matt,

You prevaricate and move all goal posts into a random argument very effectively.

Prevaricate is a word with a rather simple can clear meaning. Care to provide and example of it? Or will it remain no more than a convenient false allegation?

Yet more prevarication?
...

Are you aware that if you go to google and enter def:prevarication you will get the definition of the word? If not you are now. I suggest you try it.

I do not need to google that. He called you a Liar.

I am aware but, at the risk of a slight digression, I requested evidence of that. Such evidence is generally a quotation of what was said followed by a recitation of reality to show the conflict between the two. I am still waiting. One should not call names if one cannot back them up.

Read the thread. You have admitted you do not always respond truthfully, and have argued that "true" has no meaning, other than opinion. You have proclaimed it more important to "win" than to be honest.

So as you would say, if the shoe fits, wear it.
*tosses shoes*

---

Janice