Liberals/progressives/secularlists, what is your first impression of this website?

[imperfect.la]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I am just curious.

 

[Harbringer]

That website is like Inteligent design, its tuning facts and evidence to fit what it already wants to hear. Its pure bias, and that website wont convince anybody of anything, it will just further confirm what some bigot already beleives.

 

[CaptainF]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I am just curious.

Quoting my thoughts here:

"Man, this site really seems to be in line with those dickheads that clamor for us to keep the bombs falling, the guns firing and the bodies dropping, in the name of peace and democracy. Funny how they choose to . .. .. .. .. . and moan about Islam, when 99.9% of it's followers have done no harm against us. I wonder what they'd do when confronted by a photograph like this?"



"Man, I really wish these losers would get a life. Or, at the very least, end theirs. Painfully."

 

[jessiecat]

Offensive racist crap dear to hearts of CFC Nazis. Nothing to see. Move on.

 

[theskald]

Man, I thought you were asking our opinions on the political climate of CFC OT, not bringing up Pannonius's most trusted source of news!

 

[Arwon]

What Jessie said.

 

[stuge]

It fails even harder than Stormfront, because it isn't even amusing to read.

 

[Godwynn]

I'm not even going to click it out of fear for some malware.

 

[Communisto]

Being critical of a malignant religion doesn't make it bigotry. You can not like Islam and still not be a raving racist. I don't like the Catholic church, does that mean I'm a bigot towards my own family?

No, grow up. Anti-Islam =/= Bigotry.

 

[Miles Teg]

Legitimate criticisms of Islam (and how) taken way too far.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Very confusing. It seems to be preaching two different sides at the same time.

 

[nihilistic]

Quoting my thoughts here:

"Man, this site really seems to be in line with those dickheads that clamor for us to keep the bombs falling, the guns firing and the bodies dropping, in the name of peace and democracy. Funny how they choose to . .. .. .. .. . and moan about Islam, when 99.9% of it's followers have done no harm against us. I wonder what they'd do when confronted by a photograph like this?"



"Man, I really wish these losers would get a life. Or, at the very least, end theirs. Painfully."

Now that's stupider than almost anything I can find on that site.

Just because you showed an example of one guy who supposedly believed in Islam fighting and dying for us, the whole machinery of hatred that is inherent in every holy book and edict of Islam is to be discounted?

Peaceful religion my ass.

 

[Defiant47]

snip

That looks photoshopped

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Why is that? They put the Star of David on Jewish headstones.

 

[warpus]

The premise of the thereligionofpeace.com is a fallacy.

They claim that Islam as a whole is evil - using only a small subset of Muslims as an example (extremists).

 

[Shekwan]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I am just curious.

What do you think of it?

 

[RalofTyr]

Here's a tidbit.

First off, they claim because Bush didn't have detailed knowledge, he couldn't know the truth of the WMD claim, to debunk criticism, but then again, they seem to have very detailed knowledge about Saddam and his intentions that only a close friend would possess.


In other words, the author of that site is an idiot.

5) The War was Based on a Lie. Bush Lied about WMD�s



George W. Bush never claimed to have been to Iraq. Rather, both he and Tony Blair deferred to intelligence reports and, at the same time, complained that their sources were limited by the fact that Saddam would not allow inspections under the agreements that ended the Gulf War; nor would he respect numerous UN mandates to allow unrestricted monitoring.



Though rare, there are some in the world who allege that Bush knew the reports were wrong (in some mysterious fashion), but went to war under false pretenses anyway. This would certainly qualify as a lie, but it also defies common sense and probably speaks to the ignorance, delusion, or dishonesty of the person making such an assertion.



For obvious reasons, first-term American Presidents do not send troops into combat with a primary justification that they know will be proven false before the next election. Neither do second-term Presidents for that matter, since the fallout would have devastating consequences for their political party, to say nothing of personal conscience.



Ironically, those most critical of America over the relative absence of WMDs also happen to have been the most sympathetic toward Saddam�s manipulative shell games that made the war necessary in the first place. Their shallow and unbalanced moralizing gave the dictator confidence that the American President would never follow through with his threats to hold the Iraqi government accountable under the WMD inspections agreements that it signed. Saddam never believed that he would wind up in a spider hole or in a hangman's noose.



Had the world united against Saddam Hussein and required that he honor international law, then the war would never have happened and the good people of Iraq would still be living under his sublime and gentle hand.

 

[Phlegmak]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I am just curious.

Let me start by just saying that I'm not a liberal, nor any of those other labels.

I've read part of that website in the past. I don't remember seeing anything that I particularly disagreed with. Islam is a repulsive religion, but that's not saying much, since all religions are false, and all of the monotheist religions are repulsive. Islam is simply the worst among them.

Despite Islam, and despite religion in general, people can be good. So Christians, Jews, and Muslims are still capable of being good, even though they worship a god which says "If you don't worship me, you're going to Hell" and that proudly commits massmurder and genocide.

By the way, the Muslims who are violent towards nonMuslims are NOT following their religion incorrectly. It's simply a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. And it's an interpretation that's considered abhorrent by the majority of Muslims in today's modern world, but considering the Koran, it's not particularly wrong.

 

[JollyRoger]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I am just curious.

Religious nutcase on religious nutcase action. Kind of amusing.

 

[Pannonius]

Funny how some people here don't even want to read it. What are you affraid of?