Islamic Terrorists Take Hostages in Sydney

[Viking]

I find it a sad testimony to Languish that this has been derailed into a thread about Uber. But then it is Jacob and garbon so to them uber is clearly more evil than fundamentalist Islam.

What is there to say about fundamentalist Islam that hasn't been said many times over since 2003?

Dunno, have you started listening yet?

To you? Definitely not.

So, apparently it needs saying a few more times.

[Drakken]

Every country needs their own 9/11.  How else do you get terrible laws passed and justify horrible acts?

Australia already got one, it's called the Port Arthur Massacre.

[Jacob]

So, apparently it needs saying a few more times.

Repeating idiotic statements does not make them any more persuasive, as I'm sure you'd agree.

[Monoriu]

So, apparently it needs saying a few more times.

Repeating idiotic statements does not make them any more persuasive, as I'm sure you'd agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6]

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]

[Siege]

Where is Natalia Romanova when you need Her.

[garbon]

I find it a sad testimony to Languish that this has been derailed into a thread about Uber. But then it is Jacob and garbon so to them uber is clearly more evil than fundamentalist Islam.

What is there to say about fundamentalist Islam that hasn't been said many times over since 2003?

Dunno, have you started listening yet?

To you? Definitely not.

So, apparently it needs saying a few more times.

Nope. As Jake's post suggest, I tune you out completely on said topics. You aren't capable of an intelligent thought on them.

[Valmy]

Viking has some interesting things to say and clearly is knowledgeable on the subject, he is just so dogmatic and sure of himself it is not worth it to engage him.  Sort of like Hansy is/was on political issues.

[garbon]

Viking has some interesting things to say and clearly is knowledgeable on the subject, he is just so dogmatic and sure of himself it is not worth it to engage him.  Sort of like Hansy is/was on political issues.

I'd add that both are selectively knowledgeable on their subjects. They only keep facts that agree with their viewpoints.

[Razgovory]

Viking has some interesting things to say and clearly is knowledgeable on the subject, he is just so dogmatic and sure of himself it is not worth it to engage him.  Sort of like Hansy is/was on political issues.

I'd add that both are selectively knowledgeable on their subjects. They only keep facts that agree with their viewpoints.

From the links he shows us, and the jargon he uses it's pretty clear where he gets his information.  He often quotes to us documents he's never clearly never read because the websites and books he reads tell him that using these quotes makes his case.  When called on it, he just keeps saying the same thing over and over.

[Martinus]

Tim's posts are my 9/11

Well, they are what's needed to get majority behind waterboarding Tim.

[Martinus]

Speaking of a potential Polish 9/11, I walk to work and my firm is located in a relatively small office building in a university/residential area.

Now, if there was a 9/11 style attack in Warsaw, it would almost certainly be at two towers close by in the downtown. They house 90% of Polish offices of international law firms. 

[Viking]

Viking has some interesting things to say and clearly is knowledgeable on the subject, he is just so dogmatic and sure of himself it is not worth it to engage him.  Sort of like Hansy is/was on political issues.

I am of the opinion that the followers of a religion which has god literally commanding the believers to attack the infidels and disbelievers will from time to time, especially in times of great stress, produce people who attack infidels and disbelievers primarily for the reason that they were commanded to by god.

I do not think any of you know what the word dogmatic means. I literally do not have any dogma to follow. Disagreeing with you on an issue, not matter how vociferously, does not make me dogmatic. It's just another pathetic attempt to dismiss me without dealing with my arguments.

[Martinus]

Yeah, "dogmatic" means holding views that are being held without a proof and are considered axioms (while they are not universally accepted by everyone involved in the discussion). I don't think viking is holding such views.

In fact, if there was a dogmatic argument in this discussion, I would say it is the unshaken belief of some that tenets of the religion one professes have no influence on one's personal attitudes and actions.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, "dogmatic" means holding views that are being held without a proof and are considered axioms (while they are not universally accepted by everyone involved in the discussion). I don't think viking is holding such views.

In fact, if there was a dogmatic argument in this discussion, I would say it is the unshaken belief of some that tenets of the religion one professes have no influence on one's personal attitudes and actions.

Fortunately nobody has argued that.  "Religion is bad" is a dogmatic idea.  I would say that Viking holds to that idea.

[grumbler]

In fact, if there was a dogmatic argument in this discussion, I would say it is the unshaken belief of some that tenets of the religion one professes have no influence on one's personal attitudes and actions.

Who in this discussion believes that?