Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #900 - Sep 7^th, 2014 at 10:20pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Old boy, who did you blame for your much anticipated invasion of Iraq?

Al Qaida? Yasser Arafat? Muhammed?

Looks like they missed the target, no?

Not your fault, of course. Seventh Century prophets are very tricky to pin down.

Better luck next war, eh?

It is not in the west's interest to allow the sons of Mohammed to flourish and expand. It' s not even in the interest of most middle easterners. Islamist are welcome to seethe privately or but the moment they intersect with other interests, there will be conflict. And being Islamists, conflict is what they are looming for.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #901 - Sep 7^th, 2014 at 10:20pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Old boy, who did you blame for your much anticipated invasion of Iraq?

Al Qaida? Yasser Arafat? Muhammed?

Looks like they missed the target, no?

Not your fault, of course. Seventh Century prophets are very tricky to pin down.

Better luck next war, eh?

It is not in the west's interest to allow the sons of Mohammed to flourish and expand. It' s not even in the interest of most middle easterners. Islamist are welcome to seethe privately or but the moment they intersect with other interests, there will be conflict. And being Islamists, conflict is what they are looming for.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95921
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #902 - Sep 7^th, 2014 at 11:23pm

Soren wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Old boy, who did you blame for your much anticipated invasion of Iraq?

Al Qaida? Yasser Arafat? Muhammed?

Looks like they missed the target, no?

Not your fault, of course. Seventh Century prophets are very tricky to pin down.

Better luck next war, eh?

It is not in the west's interest to allow the sons of Mohammed to flourish and expand. It' s not even in the interest of most middle easterners. Islamist are welcome to seethe privately or but the moment they intersect with other interests, there will be conflict. And being Islamists, conflict is what they are looming for.

Which is why you argued so hard to take out a secular Middle Eastern despot.

Always, absolutely, never ever, eh?

Wake me up when you see the whites of their eyes, old boy.

Back to top

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #903 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:19pm

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

You'll have to explain, FD what constitutes "apologetics". I can't see anything which constitutes an apology in those messages.

It means taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away.

Can't see it in what Brian wrote in that post, Soren. Appears to me most of his posts are more about offering alternative explanations than anything. You know, giving people a fair go? You wouldn't be so unAustralian as to deny people a fair go, would you? Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

\|dev\|null Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4434 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #904 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:25pm Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:44pm: \|dev\|null wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2014 at 10:39pm: Sorry to disappoint you. You couldn't do otherwise. It's not me - it's you. I know. I'm just such an underachiever!
Back to top	"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013. "we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions." Freediver, 2007. IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #905 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:57pm

|dev|null wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

You'll have to explain, FD what constitutes "apologetics". I can't see anything which constitutes an apology in those messages.

It means taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away.

Can't see it in what Brian wrote in that post, Soren. Appears to me most of his posts are more about offering alternative explanations than anything. You know, giving people a fair go? You wouldn't be so unAustralian as to deny people a fair go, would you? Grin

This is the example of his taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV. I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments. It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them. I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

He recognises that they are terrible (a criticism) but will not criticise them - that's the spineless bit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #906 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:59pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Old boy, who did you blame for your much anticipated invasion of Iraq?

Al Qaida? Yasser Arafat? Muhammed?

Looks like they missed the target, no?

Not your fault, of course. Seventh Century prophets are very tricky to pin down.

Better luck next war, eh?

It is not in the west's interest to allow the sons of Mohammed to flourish and expand. It' s not even in the interest of most middle easterners. Islamist are welcome to seethe privately or but the moment they intersect with other interests, there will be conflict. And being Islamists, conflict is what they are looming for.

Which is why you argued so hard to take out a secular Middle Eastern despot.

Always, absolutely, never ever, eh?

Wake me up when you see the whites of their eyes, old boy.

Well, that was when we believed in their corrigibility, when we though we shared some universal values.

Alas, no longer.

.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95921
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #907 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 4:58pm

Soren wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

You'll have to explain, FD what constitutes "apologetics". I can't see anything which constitutes an apology in those messages.

It means taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away.

Can't see it in what Brian wrote in that post, Soren. Appears to me most of his posts are more about offering alternative explanations than anything. You know, giving people a fair go? You wouldn't be so unAustralian as to deny people a fair go, would you? Grin

This is the example of his taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV. I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments. It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them. I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

He recognises that they are terrible (a criticism) but will not criticise them - that's the spineless bit.

True, old boy, but you realize Mormor's meatballs are terrible. You have the courtesy, you see, to eat her well-prepared stool and pretend to enjoy it.

Miam miam.

Maybe it's the same with Brian and the Muselman. Maybe Brian thinks that if we're mean to them, we'll hurt their feelings.

Food for thought, eh?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95921
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #908 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 4:59pm

Soren wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 11:23pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 7^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

Old boy, who did you blame for your much anticipated invasion of Iraq?

Al Qaida? Yasser Arafat? Muhammed?

Looks like they missed the target, no?

Not your fault, of course. Seventh Century prophets are very tricky to pin down.

Better luck next war, eh?

It is not in the west's interest to allow the sons of Mohammed to flourish and expand. It' s not even in the interest of most middle easterners. Islamist are welcome to seethe privately or but the moment they intersect with other interests, there will be conflict. And being Islamists, conflict is what they are looming for.

Which is why you argued so hard to take out a secular Middle Eastern despot.

Always, absolutely, never ever, eh?

Wake me up when you see the whites of their eyes, old boy.

Well, that was when we believed in their corrigibility, when we though we shared some universal values.

Alas, no longer.

.

And you refuse to criticize Uncle because you might hurt his feelings. You see?

We're all spineless apologists in our own way, old boy.

Back to top

IP Logged

|dev|null

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4434
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #909 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 5:01pm

Soren wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

You'll have to explain, FD what constitutes "apologetics". I can't see anything which constitutes an apology in those messages.

It means taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away.

Can't see it in what Brian wrote in that post, Soren. Appears to me most of his posts are more about offering alternative explanations than anything. You know, giving people a fair go? You wouldn't be so unAustralian as to deny people a fair go, would you? Grin

This is the example of his taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV. I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments. It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them. I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

He recognises that they are terrible (a criticism) but will not criticise them - that's the spineless bit.

That's your reading of it, Soren. I believe in giving Brian a fair go. He's explained what he meant. I accept it. Why won't you? Grin

Back to top

"Pens and books are the weapons that defeat terrorism." - Malala Yousefzai, 2013.

"we will never ever solve violence while we grasp for overly simplistic solutions."
Freediver, 2007.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #910 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 6:17pm

This one really brought them out of the woodwork.

On a Sydney Mosque raising $2000 by selling an ISIS flag to ISIS supporters:

wally1 wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Whats offensive about the flag anyway?

It says there is no god but allah and Mohamed is his messenger.

I wouldnt be offended if a person was carrying a flag, "Jesus is the son of God"

Team Murdoch wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

So just out of curiosity, what terrorist acts has IS actually done anyway?

|dev|null wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Wouldn't it depend on the context? If it was being used to promote Naziism and it's ideals, definitely however, if it was part of a historical display say, at the War Memorial in Canberra, what would the concern be?

This flag is like the Eureka Flag. It has been hijacked and misused by nasty people. It isn't the flag's fault. Perhaps the auction organisers knew that but didn't realise wankers like Spring would immediately take the worst possible connotation from it. As the funds went to the Mosque and not to ISIS, what's your problem with it? It's like an RSL auctioning off a Japanese flag. Does it benefit the RSL club or the Japanese military? Grin

Karnal wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:

The North Vietnamese flag was popular with other radicals in the 60s and 70s, but most likely, not Maoists. The North Vietnamese flag was a generic symbol of resistance to the US and their corrupt South Vietnamese regime.

I'd say the flag of ISIS has the same symbolic value to Muslims.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49091 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #911 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 6:20pm Quote: That's your reading of it, Soren. I believe in giving Brian a fair go. He's explained what he meant. I accept it. Why won't you? Brian 'explained' that he stands by the original comments and their meaning. We accepted that what he says is what he means. Do you?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95921 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #912 - Sep 8^th, 2014 at 9:05pm Is it just me, or is the post-2007 FD sounding increasingly like Cods?
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #913 - Sep 9^th, 2014 at 9:00am

Karnal wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 8^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 5^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

You'll have to explain, FD what constitutes "apologetics". I can't see anything which constitutes an apology in those messages.

It means taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away.

Can't see it in what Brian wrote in that post, Soren. Appears to me most of his posts are more about offering alternative explanations than anything. You know, giving people a fair go? You wouldn't be so unAustralian as to deny people a fair go, would you? Grin

This is the example of his taking away responsibility when it should not be taken away:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

I make no excuses for those nations and their laws, BV. I merely recognise that it is their right to create and unfortunately impose those punishments. It is terrible but I also recognise I have no right or ability to criticise them. I am neither a member of their religion or a citizen of any of those nations.

He recognises that they are terrible (a criticism) but will not criticise them - that's the spineless bit.

True, old boy, but you realize Mormor's meatballs are terrible. You have the courtesy, you see, to eat her well-prepared stool and pretend to enjoy it.

Miam miam.

Maybe it's the same with Brian and the Muselman. Maybe Brian thinks that if we're mean to them, we'll hurt their feelings.

Food for thought, eh?

You are watching a channel only you can tune into, PB, and passing the ball to people only you can see.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 95921 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #914 - Sep 9^th, 2014 at 9:20am True, old chap. Reality TV, eh? No one has the right to not be offended, what.
Back to top	IP Logged