SkyDekker

In all honesty, Obama is in a bit of a difficult situation. As Col Gaddafi has indicated, the uprising is due to Osama Bin laden supplying some kind of pill to the youth in Lybia. Hence, if Obama comes out strongly against Col Gaddafi, he would be seen as supporting OBL. Now, we all know that the muslim kenyan in charge of the US is secretly a strong supporter of OBL. You will note the Obama as stayed away from commenting on Col Gaddafi's youth drug claim, which is a clear indication that he agrees!!!!

Nobody deserves to be stabbed to death in their home by intruders. Does that mean everybody should have a gun?

You just made an argument against the right to guns.

John I thought you agreed that criminals shouldn't have access to guns? Now I understand your opinion to be: Criminals are allowed to have guns as long as what they do with the guns is something I agree with.

How do you know this isn't already a counter intelligence, false information project?

That's a pretty big assumption.

yeah, but when you ask them to point to it on a world map, they are likely to point to your little island

A fine example of the People of Peace (tm)!!!!

Amen preacher...where do I send my money I do wholeheartedly agree with you.

Sharia law was added as the principle rule of law to the Egyptian constitution in 1980.

See, the US is clearly turning muslim already....

Intimidation and fear are a big part of politics and is certainly not limited to despots. Just look around in the US, everything is done on the basis of fear.

Not at all, various christian dominated countries still allow for the honour killing defence in court as well as crimes of passion. In other christian dominated countries it only recently changed. Francois Duvalier was nominally Roman Catholic, but committed his atrocities more in the name of vodou. Religion provides a vehicle for bad people to do bad things, christianity in its many forms has many examples of it.

That's not what I said, not even close. Your question is so ridiculous, I am going to assume it is rhetorical. A democratic system brought Hitler to power. Anything is possible when people vote. Funny.

I want him charged for not being American.

You have not read the link in the OP, you have not made one post on the topic and all your posts in this tread have been about other posters.

Because the challenge is flawed. The discussed event is culture driven not religon driven. But since many cannot grasp the difference in those concepts, the following is copied from Wikipedia: "in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be non-criminal 'honor killings'; in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. " Now, since this is a cultural issue, there is no mention of religon. However, 89.4% of the population of Brazil is either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Odds are pretty high a fair number of those 800 husbands is of a christian faith. I wonder why markharju never posts about honour killings in Brazil? (popsjumper, you obviously didn't look to hard either, the information is pretty readily available. Would that be because you are also more concerned about addressing the poster as opposed to the topic? A little pot calling the kettle black?) You may want to read the title of the post. Honour killings or mutilations are not a muslim event. They are cultural, not religous. Hence, if he wanted to have an honest discussion about honour killings within the jewish faith, well let's have it. However, it is my clear impression tha the OP has no interest in honour killings or mutilations, it is just a vehicle. The indignant I was talking about where those who were "upset" that markharju was not getting responses on his "topic". I am certainly not upset markharju posts about muslims. In my opinion he is a bigot and a racist and his opinions carry absolutely no weight with me. I actually would prefer he posts more, it shows his true character.

priceless.

But that would be posts about posters as opposed to posts about the topic, which is what you are supposedly ranting against.

I think you are wrong. Thought I was pretty clear honour killings are not tolerable. What is the topic? Honour killings, Muslim honour killings, or the belief that honour killings prove something about islam? Number one and two have been addressed. Number three, also addressed. It says the same about islam, as it says about druze, hindu, sikh, christian, jewish and any other faith in which name family members have been killed. Or was the topic really: another reason why I don't like muslims? Yes it does, but it explains the responses to the indignant.

Emphasis mine. At least you understand that honour killings are cultural. We can all agree that such killings, as most all killings, are not tolerable. But, what the fuck does it have to do with Islam? Should we be less opposed to honour killings in Druze communities? What about honour killings in south america, where some countries allow the act. Should we be less against those honour killings? Hence, the questioning why the OP would post, and continue to post such stories. Is he truly upset about honour killings, or does he just not like muslims. His posting history, even after this has been pointed out makes it pretty clear.

Thank you for finally understanding.

Because the topic is bullshit. Nobody thinks all muslims are great people. Most can understand there are great, good, bad and evil muslims. Some are beyond reason and think all muslims are evil. Why adress any topic with them, it is as useless as the tits on a nun.

That's funny.

Interesting that when you write a post like that you are able to do so without spelling errors. Guess that only happens when thought is required.