And only the rising force of Islam will prevail

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, May 3, 2026 22:41
VIEWED: 6566
PAGE 3 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:23 AM

I do understand your point Finn and I can't entirely disagree with it. I just don't appreciate them printing money out of thin air and killing the value of the currency I've managed to save up in the process to do it. Which, by the way, there is ZERO coincidence that today we are paying nearly $4.00 a gallon for gas. That shit is directly corrolated. It's not that gas has risen to a record high of $126 dollars a barrel, it's that the value of the American Dollar (the currency oil is graded in) has plummeted since 2001 and we're all paying twice as much for things like gas, eggs and cheese as a result. I'm not blaming this entirely on the war, as there is many other avenues of needless government spending and creating money needlessly (see: War on College Students thread), it just happens to be the one that pisses me off most.

Basically, it's as if every month the government is splitting the stock (US Dollar) and instead of me getting reimbursed money to make up for the devaluation of the stock, they're pissing the split away picking fights with people who live half a world away from me with it.

Not to mention the imperialism aspect of it all. That's not what we're here to do and we're basically giving Russia or China the green-light to do the very same thing to us someday. How hard do you think, honestly, it would be for either of those super-powers to put enough propoganda out there that their people will be in full agreement (like the entire US was behind Bush circa 2001) that the only way to prevent the US from invading them was to destroy us first? Regardless of what really happened here on 9/11, do you really think China's government would have any qualms about sacraficing 10,000 of their own people if they could make it look like it was an act of war initiated on our part?

We can't keep preaching one thing to the world and our own people while doing the exact opposite. It's transparent and we're not fooling anyone and we're dangerously setting prescident that we will not be able to justify if we're ever the ones on trial. (Another BIG reason why I fear the UN's power, becauase we're going to get stomped on quite a bit if we ever cede power to them. Coincidentally, it's just another reason why I fear Obama because I think within eight years of Obama rule we're going to be just another seat at the UN table)

I don't know what the answer is Finn. My head isn't in the clouds or up my ass about the issue, as I've given it very much thought. All I can do is prepare for the worst. What I've done is secure my stability, at least for a half year or more, in the case of any national tragedy/emergency. In doing so, I'm simply not afraid anymore. If you're not afraid, the terrorists can't beat you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 11, 2008 5:08 PM

Frem, I find it interesting that as I merely post the factual event on the board, you first accuse me of being 'scared' , which is just a way to completely miss the whole point of the article. Then you try to dismiss the message by killing the messenger, with a jaded opinion piece by a well known anti-American 'Guardian' paper , and of course, Wikipedia.

If you can't come up w/ an bona fide alternate translation which shows a vastly different message, then you really don't have a point after all.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then you try to dismiss the message by killing the messenger, with a jaded opinion piece by a well known anti-American 'Guardian' paper , and of course, Wikipedia.

Erm, you do realise that you start the sentence by saying you can't dismiss the message by attacking the messenger, which is true its called an Ad Hominem, but you ended it by erm, dismissing the message by attacking the messenger... Good job!

It's certainly more relevant than some unsubstantiated raving about the "anti-Americanism" of the Guardian.

Beyond that, if this translation is accurate, this guy sounds like a Muslim version of AURaptor, so it's pretty disturbing yeah.

EDIT:
Though, questioning the correctness of the translation made by a source of questionable motives is, yanno, actually relevant. Not that I'm endorsing the objection in anyway, but if MEMRI has a historical precedent in bad translation, it's a very valid point, in in lieu of another translation. Of course one can't actually attack the message by attacking the translator, the translator shouldn't be pushing a message, should they.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then you try to dismiss the message by killing the messenger, with a jaded opinion piece by a well known anti-American 'Guardian' paper , and of course, Wikipedia.
Erm, you do realise that you start the sentence by saying you can't dismiss the message by attacking the messenger, which is true its called an Ad Hominem, but you ended it by erm, dismissing the message by attacking the messenger... Good job!

Though, questioning the correctness of the translation made by a source of questionable motives is, yanno, actually relevant. It's certainly more relevant than some unsubstantiated raving about the "anti-Americanism" of the Guardian.

Beyond that, this guy sounds like a Muslim version of AURaptor, so it's pretty disturbing yeah.

Bottom line, if you can't offer up an alternative translation that dispels the basic message as it's presented, there really is no valid point here.

Suggesting that I some how promote a world dominated by one religion, one nation , one race or anything remotely close to that only shows citizen has the comprehension skills of a moldy tomato.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Bottom line, if you can't offer up an alternative translation that dispels the basic message as it's presented, there really is no valid point here.

Bottom line, questioning the correctness of a translation from a known bad source, is still valid even without an alternate translation. What it doesn't do is give us a better translation, but it's still perfectly fine to bring the one in hand in to judgement, no matter how many times one says "no I like this one, it pushes my agenda, I'm not listening, lalala!"

I'm not even making the case that it's a bad translation, I'm just pointing out that we don't need an alternate translation in order to question the one we have.

Quote:
This guy sounds exactly opposite to me, so what ever point citizen is attempting to make, he's failed. Again.

No, that was the point, thanks for confirming it

. You're the exact opposite of him, in the same way Misandry is the exact opposite of Misogyny...

The above was edited too:

Quote:
Suggesting that I some how promote a world dominated by one religion, one nation , one race or anything remotely close to that only shows citizen has the comprehension skills of a moldy tomato.

And saying that that is what I'm suggesting proves AURaptor is either the stupidest moron, the biggest liar, or (more likely) both, on this site.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:46 PM

Citizen, your comprehension of the word " opposite " leaves much to be desired. Moldy tomato.

Thanks for proving my point.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:51 PM

The burden of proof for those making the claim that a group is suspect lies upon those making the charge. If you have nothing to base your accusations on, then your claims are nigh meaningless. It goes further to merely ask as to the qualifications or legitimacy of MEMRI. No, you're siding w/ the notion that, by default, MEMRI should not be trusted, or their translations are suspect, with nothing to support that position.

No, instead all some have are childish insults, inane accusations and absurd comparisons.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, your comprehension of the word " opposite " leaves much to be desired. Moldy tomato.

Thanks for proving my point.

If you think I've proved your point, your comprehension of the English language leaves much to be desired. Wet Cabbage.

Thanks for proving you are the stupidest moron on the site.

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The burden of proof for those making the claim that a group is suspect lies upon those making the charge. If you have nothing to base your accusations on, then your claims are nigh meaningless.

You're making claims based on the say so of a source known to be suspect, but I guess burden of proof only counts for things you don't like the sound of huh...

If a source has shown to be bad in the past, it's a good idea to treat it's information as suspect in future, unless it says what you want to hear huh...

Quote:
No, you're siding w/ the notion that, by default, MEMRI should not be trusted, or their translations are suspect, with nothing to support that position.

You mean like saying wikipedia or the Guardian can't be trusted about anything on your say so. Or is it different when you do it?

Quote:
No, instead all some have are childish insults, inane accusations and absurd comparisons.

Which is the only way you ever respond to anyone, but I'm used to your legendary hypocrisy

. I find comparing you, an "Americano-Fascist" to an "Islamo-Fascist", more and more adroit.

They promote attacking and killing people in the name of their religion, with vague arguments, with some factual basis, that those people are attacking them. They turn a blind eye to, or excuse their 'sides' actions toward that end.

You promote attacking and killing people because of their religion, with vague arguments, with some factual basis, that they're attacking you. You turn a blind eye to, or excuse your 'sides' actions toward that end.

Yeah, not one valid comparison there...

What's that I hear AU? "it's ok when I do it..."

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:24 PM

How bout going on the evidence.

Fact - MEMRI has in the past skewed translations, this is not whatever in doubt and they've been caught at it.

Fact - MEMRI is run by folks with a vested interest in shading translation, and financed by relatively few folks who also have a vested interest.

Those two undisputed facts lead me to believe their translation is suspect, if one merely scrolls up they can see that I simply stated that the odds were very good that a straight-meaning translation from another source would NOT match MEMRIs translation, and offered to make book on it (metaphorically) if anyone cared to go find one.

So far no one has cared to, and I do not have the time, too much on my plate already.

-F

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE