• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Lebanon - A New Pact?

Indie

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
u wrongly understand my stance ..
i dunno the background of the people or the event or the whole story ..
but when it comes to some groups of evangelist ( messianic or so on ) i happen to know some of those groups . lol they are fanatic sionist, worst than sionist themselves ..
some of michigan arabs are palestinians .. so i can imagine the extent of those group provocation .. using islam to insult entire group of people ..
as a matter of fact , islam and shariah here have nothing to do ,.. since most zealous muslim countries who follow shariah are de facto allies with those same evangelical groups ...
If what you understood from what you posted is that the Christian preachers are in the wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.

PS: . please do not drag my family here .. since u dunno me , my family or anything about them .. comment on what i say here ,, myself .. and i am a godless atheist and u must live with that the same way i speak to you and consider you as you describe yourself to be "armenian catholic ".
I didn't claim that you're Muslim. Everyone here knows you're an atheist. I said you're from a Muslim background, which is something you must have shared here before, because I never assume forumers' religion. I don't see how I'm insulting you or your family by repeating information you provided, especially that I did so in a post thanking you.

I realize now that I misunderstood the intent of your post, and so a "thank you" was not in order, but that's another story.
 
  • Advertisement
  • T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Ceteris paribus (holding other things constant), a sufficient condition for a certain act to take place, is sufficient only with (or by including) a necessary condition for said act. A necessary condition is a) that without which said act does/can not take place, or, put differently, b) that without which the sufficient condition isn't sufficient. In order to cook a potato, it is sufficient to boil the potato, as it is also sufficient, alternatively, to roast it instead. In either case, the necessary condition for cooking the potato - whether by boiling it or roasting it - is 'having the intention or purpose or justification of cooking the potato in the first place' which includes 'the will to get a potato' and passes by 'actually having a potato' and arrives at 'cooking it'. Unlike the sufficient condition, the necessary condition is that which is basic/primary and unexchangeable, for the act to take place. A sufficient condition on the other hand is secondary (dispensable) and/or exchangeable with other different sufficient conditions for a certain act (whether it is boiling or roasting, each of the two is sufficient for cooking a potato). Moreover, when, for an act, a necessary condition generates/leads to or enables its sufficient condition, then said otherwise necessary condition in itself is both necessary and sufficient. My 'intending to cook a potato' can lead/cause me to get/have a potato and eventually cook it, be it by boiling or roasting or whatever other way which leads to or achieves my 'cooking the potato'. My [intention/will and justification/thinking] for cooking the potato could then in itself be or become a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for cooking the potato.

    While murder can happen with this or that gun, or without a gun at all, or with something that isn't a gun per se (a stone), the murder would still not happen without the intention and justification of carrying out the murder to begin with. This gun or that one, or this stone or that plank, are not in themselves sufficient for murder to take place unless joined with the [murder intention and justification/thinking]. Moreover, a [murder intention and justification/thinking] can in itself form/yield a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for the murder to take place. Willing the murder of someone may lead to / include forming/enabling a sufficient condition, or making the condition specifically sufficient, for carrying out said act of murder.

    Likewise it is with terrorism or any other effect or impact in society such as that of being pro or anti secularism or democracy. While [poverty and illiteracy], for instance, may be a sufficient condition for terrorism, it would still not be sufficient as such without a necessary condition (which is that without which 'poverty and illiteracy' would not be a sufficient condition for terrorism or lead to it). Being a sufficient condition as such means a) it doesn't by itself cause or necessarily lead to terrorism, it needs to be joined with a necessary condition for terrorism to take place, b) there may be other/different (even otherwise contrary) factors/conditions (given the example at hand; ones that involve subjects being wealthy and educated) that could likewise be a sufficient condition for terrorism (once joined with the necessary condition for terrorism such as the terrorism intention and justification).

    Thus, given that being Muslim = adhering to Islam, then no matter how graphy, formal and rich the statistical anti-terrorism studies (often produced by the useful idiots / wicked individuals positioned at the helm of the world's top notch universities) around say 'poverty's role in causing Muslim terrorism' is, or around 'how much western_ideals-friendly Muslims in western countries are, it would still be a categorically invalid study unless it a) addresses Islam the religion, and b) addresses it as the necessary factor/condition in 'either enabling/justifying Muslim terrorism and anti_western_ideals or not', and c) addresses the question about whether Islam is being both a necessary and sufficient factor at that (a fully fledged terrorism and anti_western_ideals self-sustaining ideology).

    When Muslim terrorism or western-ideals-opposition needs more than just poverty and illiteracy, then the wicked/idiots' anti-terrorism study that builds on poverty and illiteracy being a primary/necessary factor in causing Muslim terrorism and Muslim opposition to western ideals, and overlooks the actually necessary factor such as the subjects' intention and justification in this regard, would be inherently deficient, categorically invalid, and amounts to actually be pro-terrorism and anti_western_ideals itself if only for blurring the lines between the causes or diverting attention from the primary/necessary cause/factor for terrorism and anti_western_ideals, diverting attention from that without which, no Muslim terrorism or Muslim western_ideals_undoing_or_opposition would take place.

    Providing Muslims with say [education and wealth, or with 'equal opportunities'] (i.e. providing them with the supposed counter-cause to terrorism, anti-democracy and anti-secularism) is not going to make them anti-terrorism, pro-secularism and pro-democracy so long as a) it is not going to stop them from being or wanting to be Muslim or more Muslim, and b) Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and democracy and non-terrorism.

    It is thus imperative to either tackle Islam in this project and proceed accordingly, or proceed while taking into consideration the otherwise obvious and non-politically-correct conclusion that everyone knows but very few spell out openly and straightforwardly. Even with the obvious conclusion in mind, one needs not ban or counter Islam directly or right away, but rather one needs to put in place the necessary measures and safeguards for securing society against it as a first step, to then undo it gradually with peaceful and tender means (evangelization).

    -----------

    Besides the hateful, unfounded, irrational and impulsive accusations (which often get accompanied by a shit eating grin on the face), there's no non-fallacious response to that.

    A/ Islam causing and supporting terrorism and anti_western_ideals doesn't lead to holding all Muslims are terrorist and anti-western-ideals or all Muslims necessarily (or directly) cause and support terrorism and anti_western_ideals. The missing premise for that entailment will have to be all Muslims adhere equally or sufficiently or properly to Islam, and this is nowhere held in the argument.

    B/ If some ideologies cause and enable terrorism, not all ideologies cause and enable terrorism. Different and opposite acts correspond respectively to different and opposite justifications/instructions.
     
    Last edited:
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    Member
    It’s no surprise that the coronavirus targeted mostly Christians in Lebanon. The pandemic symbolizes a new chapter in our human existential experience. The old guard is dying, and a new era is being born. Western Christendom is giving its final act, and the millennials are about to take over.

    That, coupled with the awful political and economic situation in Lebanon, has furthered the trend of a disappearing Christian community in Lebanon. Unironically, the port explosion mainly affected Christian neighborhoods, and this is a reflection of the waning thought of the cross.

    This isn’t to say that other thoughts are not undergoing salient transformations. This can be seen in the Shiite community for example, which is experiencing enormous pressure to heed in a particular direction. Despite the stubbornness of the sect, the Shiite thought will not be the same when this pandemic is over and the storm has cleared.

    It’ll be real interesting to see what this all looks like when the transformation process has finalized!
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Oh boy...



    This is the very definition of a group of folks using the fabric of a democratic state to promote an undemocratic religion.
    You have completely lost your mind in prejudice and hatred. What is a "democratic religion"? For example, did you guys vote for Jesus to become whatever you believe he is? And how do schools marking a holiday offend you so much to make a senseless statement?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @SoFP1 I'll let you decide if this sounds like someone who would walk in an Arab festival and demand that the Muslims there debate him about why "they're going to hell."

    If you don't have the time to watch the whole video, his answer to the first question will give you an idea what kind of person he is.

    He is dead, right? You should allow him rest. When someone forces himself in the occasion of another group of believers to preach to them about why they're wrong and he is right, what is that? Was it not a private occasion? If I don't want you to preach to me about your pagan doctrines, how is that wrong of me?

    And by the way, Jehovah's Witnesses are banned in Lebanon thanks to the influence of the Maronite church that didnt tolerate their door to door preaching and expansion into its base.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    If what you understood from what you posted is that the Christian preachers are in the wrong, then I don't know what to tell you.



    I didn't claim that you're Muslim. Everyone here knows you're an atheist. I said you're from a Muslim background, which is something you must have shared here before, because I never assume forumers' religion. I don't see how I'm insulting you or your family by repeating information you provided, especially that I did so in a post thanking you.

    I realize now that I misunderstood the intent of your post, and so a "thank you" was not in order, but that's another story.
    Why are you derailing this thread by posting off topics and telling us for another time about what happened to some fanatical evangelicals in Michigan?

    Have we, as Muslims who make up 70% of Lebanon imposed anything on you?

    If I am holding a ceremony and your group of fanatics come to preach in order to instigate a clash or provocation, then you blame the fanatics.
     
    Lebnaouneh

    Lebnaouneh

    Legendary Member
    Ceteris paribus (holding other things constant), a sufficient condition for a certain act to take place, is sufficient only with (or by including) a necessary condition for said act. A necessary condition is a) that without which said act does/can not take place, or, put differently, b) that without which the sufficient condition isn't sufficient. In order to cook a potato, it is sufficient to boil the potato, as it is also sufficient, alternatively, to roast it instead. In either case, the necessary condition for cooking the potato - whether by boiling it or roasting it - is 'having the intention or purpose or justification of cooking the potato in the first place' which includes 'the will to get a potato' and passes by 'actually having a potato' and arrives at 'cooking it'. Unlike the sufficient condition, the necessary condition is that which is basic/primary and unexchangeable, for the act to take place. A sufficient condition on the other hand is secondary (dispensable) and/or exchangeable with other different sufficient conditions for a certain act (whether it is boiling or roasting, each of the two is sufficient for cooking a potato). Moreover, when, for an act, a necessary condition generates/leads to or enables its sufficient condition, then said otherwise necessary condition in itself is both necessary and sufficient. My 'intending to cook a potato' can lead/cause me to get/have a potato and eventually cook it, be it by boiling or roasting or whatever other way which leads to or achieves my 'cooking the potato'. My [intention/will and justification/thinking] for cooking the potato could then in itself be or become a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for cooking the potato.

    While murder can happen with this or that gun, or without a gun at all, or with something that isn't a gun per se (a stone), the murder would still not happen without the intention and justification of carrying out the murder to begin with. This gun or that one, or this stone or that plank, are not in themselves sufficient for murder to take place unless joined with the [murder intention and justification/thinking]. Moreover, a [murder intention and justification/thinking] can in itself form/yield a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for the murder to take place. Willing the murder of someone may lead to / include forming/enabling a sufficient condition, or making the condition specifically sufficient, for carrying out said act of murder.

    Likewise it is with terrorism or any other effect or impact in society such as that of being pro or anti secularism or democracy. While [poverty and illiteracy], for instance, may be a sufficient condition for terrorism, it would still not be sufficient as such without a necessary condition (which is that without which 'poverty and illiteracy' would not be a sufficient condition for terrorism or lead to it). Being a sufficient condition as such means a) it doesn't by itself cause or necessarily lead to terrorism, it needs to be joined with a necessary condition for terrorism to take place, b) there may be other/different (even otherwise contrary) factors/conditions (given the example at hand; ones that involve subjects being wealthy and educated) that could likewise be a sufficient condition for terrorism (once joined with the necessary condition for terrorism such as the terrorism intention and justification).

    Thus, given that being Muslim = adhering to Islam, then no matter how graphy, formal and rich the statistical anti-terrorism studies (often produced by the useful idiots / wicked individuals positioned at the helm of the world's top notch universities) around say 'poverty's role in causing Muslim terrorism' is, or around 'how much western_ideals-friendly Muslims in western countries are, it would still be a categorically invalid study unless it a) addresses Islam the religion, and b) addresses it as the necessary factor/condition in 'either enabling/justifying Muslim terrorism and anti_western_ideals or not', and c) addresses the question about whether Islam is being both a necessary and sufficient factor at that (a fully fledged terrorism and anti_western_ideals self-sustaining ideology).

    When Muslim terrorism or western-ideals-opposition needs more than just poverty and illiteracy, then the wicked/idiots' anti-terrorism study that builds on poverty and illiteracy being a primary/necessary factor in causing Muslim terrorism and Muslim opposition to western ideals, and overlooks the actually necessary factor such as the subjects' intention and justification in this regard, would be inherently deficient, categorically invalid, and amounts to actually be pro-terrorism and anti_western_ideals itself if only for blurring the lines between the causes or diverting attention from the primary/necessary cause/factor for terrorism and anti_western_ideals, diverting attention from that without which, no Muslim terrorism or Muslim western_ideals_undoing_or_opposition would take place.

    Providing Muslims with say [education and wealth, or with 'equal opportunities'] (i.e. providing them with the supposed counter-cause to terrorism, anti-democracy and anti-secularism) is not going to make them anti-terrorism, pro-secularism and pro-democracy so long as a) it is not going to stop them from being or wanting to be Muslim or more Muslim, and b) Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and democracy and non-terrorism.

    It is thus imperative to either tackle Islam in this project and proceed accordingly, or proceed while taking into consideration the otherwise obvious and non-politically-correct conclusion that everyone knows but very few spell out openly and straightforwardly. Even with the obvious conclusion in mind, one needs not ban or counter Islam directly or right away, but rather one needs to put in place the necessary measures and safeguards for securing society against it as a first step, to then undo it gradually with peaceful and tender means (evangelization).

    -----------

    Besides the hateful, unfounded, irrational and impulsive accusations (which often get accompanied by a shit eating grin on the face), there's no non-fallacious response to that.

    A/ Islam causing and supporting terrorism and anti_western_ideals doesn't lead to holding all Muslims are terrorist and anti-western-ideals or all Muslims necessarily (or directly) cause and support terrorism and anti_western_ideals. The missing premise for that entailment will have to be all Muslims adhere equally or sufficiently or properly to Islam, and this is nowhere held in the argument.

    B/ If some ideologies cause and enable terrorism, not all ideologies cause and enable terrorism. Different and opposite acts correspond respectively to different and opposite justifications/instructions.
    You’re the secular version of Rafidi aren’t you
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Ceteris paribus (holding other things constant), a sufficient condition for a certain act to take place, is sufficient only with (or by including) a necessary condition for said act. A necessary condition is a) that without which said act does/can not take place, or, put differently, b) that without which the sufficient condition isn't sufficient. In order to cook a potato, it is sufficient to boil the potato, as it is also sufficient, alternatively, to roast it instead. In either case, the necessary condition for cooking the potato - whether by boiling it or roasting it - is 'having the intention or purpose or justification of cooking the potato in the first place' which includes 'the will to get a potato' and passes by 'actually having a potato' and arrives at 'cooking it'. Unlike the sufficient condition, the necessary condition is that which is basic/primary and unexchangeable, for the act to take place. A sufficient condition on the other hand is secondary (dispensable) and/or exchangeable with other different sufficient conditions for a certain act (whether it is boiling or roasting, each of the two is sufficient for cooking a potato). Moreover, when, for an act, a necessary condition generates/leads to or enables its sufficient condition, then said otherwise necessary condition in itself is both necessary and sufficient. My 'intending to cook a potato' can lead/cause me to get/have a potato and eventually cook it, be it by boiling or roasting or whatever other way which leads to or achieves my 'cooking the potato'. My [intention/will and justification/thinking] for cooking the potato could then in itself be or become a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for cooking the potato.

    While murder can happen with this or that gun, or without a gun at all, or with something that isn't a gun per se (a stone), the murder would still not happen without the intention and justification of carrying out the murder to begin with. This gun or that one, or this stone or that plank, are not in themselves sufficient for murder to take place unless joined with the [murder intention and justification/thinking]. Moreover, a [murder intention and justification/thinking] can in itself form/yield a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for the murder to take place. Willing the murder of someone may lead to / include forming/enabling a sufficient condition, or making the condition specifically sufficient, for carrying out said act of murder.

    Likewise it is with terrorism or any other effect or impact in society such as that of being pro or anti secularism or democracy. While [poverty and illiteracy], for instance, may be a sufficient condition for terrorism, it would still not be sufficient as such without a necessary condition (which is that without which 'poverty and illiteracy' would not be a sufficient condition for terrorism or lead to it). Being a sufficient condition as such means a) it doesn't by itself cause or necessarily lead to terrorism, it needs to be joined with a necessary condition for terrorism to take place, b) there may be other/different (even otherwise contrary) factors/conditions (given the example at hand; ones that involve subjects being wealthy and educated) that could likewise constitute a sufficient condition for terrorism (once joined with the necessary condition for terrorism such as the terrorism intention and justification).

    Thus, given that being Muslim = adhering to Islam, then no matter how graphy, formal and rich the statistical anti-terrorism studies (often produced by the useful idiots / wicked individuals positioned at the helm of the world's top notch universities) around say 'poverty's role in causing Muslim terrorism' is, or around 'how much western_ideals-friendly Muslims in western countries are, it would still be a categorically invalid study unless it a) addresses Islam the religion, and b) addresses it as the necessary factor/condition in 'either enabling/justifying Muslim terrorism and anti_western_ideals or not', and c) addresses the question about whether Islam is being both a necessary and sufficient factor at that (a fully fledged terrorism and anti_western_ideals self-sustaining ideology).

    When Muslim terrorism or western-ideals-opposition needs more than just poverty and illiteracy, then the wicked/idiots' anti-terrorism study that builds on poverty and illiteracy being a primary/necessary factor in causing Muslim terrorism and Muslim opposition to western ideals, and overlooks the actually necessary factor such as the subjects' intention and justification in this regard, would be inherently deficient, categorically invalid, and amounts to actually be pro-terrorism and anti_western_ideals itself if only for blurring the lines between the causes or diverting attention from the primary/necessary cause/factor for terrorism and anti_western_ideals, diverting attention from that without which, no Muslim terrorism or Muslim western_ideals_undoing_or_opposition would take place.

    Providing Muslims with say [education and wealth, or with 'equal opportunities'] (i.e. providing them with the supposed counter-cause to terrorism, anti-democracy and anti-secularism) is not going to make them anti-terrorism, pro-secularism and pro-democracy so long as a) it is not going to stop them from being or wanting to be Muslim or more Muslim, and b) Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and democracy and non-terrorism.

    It is thus imperative to either tackle Islam in this project and proceed accordingly, or proceed while taking into consideration the otherwise obvious and non-politically-correct conclusion that everyone knows but very few spell out openly and straightforwardly. Even with the obvious conclusion in mind, one needs not ban or counter Islam directly or right away, but rather one needs to put in place the necessary measures and safeguards for securing society against it as a first step, to then undo it gradually with peaceful and tender means (evangelization).

    -----------

    Besides the hateful, unfounded, irrational and impulsive accusations (which often get accompanied by a shit eating grin on the face), there's no non-fallacious response to that.

    A/ Islam causing and supporting terrorism and anti_western_ideals doesn't lead to holding all Muslims are terrorist and anti-western-ideals or all Muslims necessarily (or directly) cause and support terrorism and anti_western_ideals. The missing premise for that entailment will have to be all Muslims adhere equally or sufficiently or properly to Islam, and this is nowhere held in the argument.

    B/ If some ideologies cause and enable terrorism, not all ideologies cause and enable terrorism. Different and opposite acts correspond respectively to different and opposite justifications/instructions.
    Some adjustments and additions in red

    ----------

    Ceteris paribus (holding other things constant), a sufficient condition for a certain act to take place, is sufficient only with (or by including) a necessary condition for said act. A necessary condition is a) that without which said act does/can not take place, or, put differently, b) that without which the sufficient condition isn't sufficient. In order to cook a potato, it is sufficient to boil the potato, as it is also sufficient, alternatively, to roast it instead. In either case, the necessary condition for cooking the potato - whether by boiling it or roasting it - is 'having the intention or purpose or justification of cooking the potato in the first place' which includes 'the will to get a potato' and passes by 'actually having a potato' and arrives at 'cooking it'. Unlike the sufficient condition, the necessary condition is that which is basic/primary and unexchangeable, for the act to take place. A sufficient condition for a certain act on the other hand is secondary (dispensable) and/or exchangeable with other different sufficient conditions for said act (whether it is boiling or roasting, each of these two actions is sufficient for cooking a potato, taken with the necessary condition). Moreover, when, for an act, a necessary condition generates/leads to or enables its sufficient condition, then said otherwise necessary condition in itself is both necessary and sufficient. My 'intending to cook a potato' can lead/cause me to get/have a potato and eventually cook it, be it by boiling or roasting or whatever other way which leads to or achieves my 'cooking the potato'. My [intention/will and justification/thinking] for cooking the potato could then in itself be or become a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for cooking the potato. In short: A/ a necessary condition in/by itself may not be sufficient for an act to take place; a) although without it the act does not take place, b) it needs to be joined with a sufficient condition for the act to take place. B/ On the other hand, a sufficient condition in/by itself is not sufficient; a) although without it the act can still take place (provided a different sufficient condition exists), b) a sufficient condition needs to be joined with a necessary condition for the act to take place. C/ A necessary condition is also sufficient when it contains/yields its sufficient condition.

    While murder can happen with this or that gun, or without a gun at all, or with something that isn't a gun per se (a stone), the murder would still not happen without the intention and justification of carrying out the murder to begin with. This gun or that one, or this stone or that plank, are not in/by themselves sufficient for murder to take place unless joined with the [murder intention and justification/thinking]. Moreover, a [murder intention and justification/thinking] can in itself form/yield a condition that is both necessary and sufficient for the murder to take place. Willing the murder of someone may lead to / include forming/enabling a sufficient condition, or making the condition specifically sufficient, for carrying out said act of murder.

    Likewise it is with terrorism or any other effect or impact in society such as that of being pro or anti secularism or democracy. While [poverty and illiteracy], for instance, may constitute a sufficient condition for terrorism, it would still not be sufficient as such without a necessary condition (which is that without which 'poverty and illiteracy' would not be a sufficient condition for terrorism or lead to it). Being a sufficient condition as such means a) it doesn't by itself cause or necessarily lead to terrorism, it needs to be joined with a necessary condition for terrorism to take place, b) there may be other/different (even otherwise contrary) factors/conditions (such as, given the example at hand, ones that involve subjects being wealthy and educated) that could likewise constitute a sufficient condition for terrorism (once joined with the necessary condition for terrorism such as the terrorism intention and justification).

    Thus, given that being Muslim = adhering to Islam, then no matter how graphy, formal and rich the statistical anti-terrorism studies (often produced by the useful idiots / wicked liberal arts graduates positioned at the helm of the world's top notch universities) around say 'causes of Muslim terrorism' is, or around 'how much western_ideals-friendly Muslims in western countries are', it would still be a categorically invalid study unless it a) addresses Islam the religion (or the subjects' ideology/justification and its association/compatibility/identification with Islam), and b) addresses it as the necessary factor/condition in 'either enabling/justifying Muslim terrorism and anti_western_ideals or not', and c) addresses the question about whether Islam (the subjects' ideology/justification) is being both a necessary and sufficient factor at that (a fully fledged terrorism and anti_western_ideals self-sustaining ideology).

    When Muslim terrorism or western-ideals-opposition needs more than just [poverty and illiteracy] as "alone, unaccompanied" or "not needing other things", namely as being a sufficient condition but without necessary condition,or as being also a necessary condition when in reality it is not, then the wicked/idiots' anti-terrorism study that builds on [poverty and illiteracy] being a primary/necessary factor in causing 'Muslim terrorism and Muslim opposition to western ideals', and overlooks/excludes the actually necessary factor such as the subjects' intention and justification in this regard (the one thing without which (or when tackled and countered)), no Muslim terrorism takes place and no Muslim western-ideals_opposition_or_undoing occurs), would be inherently deficient, categorically invalid, and amounts to actually be pro-terrorism and anti_western_ideals itself if only for blurring the lines between the causes or diverting attention from the primary/necessary cause/factor for terrorism and anti_western_ideals (diverting attention from that without which, no Muslim terrorism or Muslim western_ideals_undoing_or_opposition would take place).

    Providing Muslims with say [education and wealth, or with 'equal opportunities'] (i.e. providing them with the supposed counter-cause to terrorism, anti-democracy and anti-secularism) is not going to make them anti-terrorism, pro-secularism and pro-democracy so long as a) it is not going to stop them from being or wanting to be Muslim or more Muslim, and b) Islam is inherently incompatible with secularism and democracy and non-terrorism.

    It is thus imperative to either tackle Islam in this project and proceed accordingly, or proceed while taking into consideration the otherwise obvious and non-politically-correct conclusion that everyone knows but very few spell out openly and straightforwardly. Even with the obvious conclusion in mind, one needs not ban or counter Islam directly or right away, but rather one needs to put in place the necessary measures and safeguards for securing society against it as a first step, to then undo it gradually with peaceful and tender means (evangelization).

    -----------

    Besides the hateful, unfounded, irrational and impulsive accusations (which often get accompanied by a shit eating grin on the face), there's no non-fallacious response to that.

    A/ Islam causing and supporting terrorism and anti_western_ideals doesn't lead to holding all Muslims are terrorist and anti-western-ideals or all Muslims necessarily (or directly) cause and support terrorism and anti_western_ideals. The missing premise for that entailment will have to be all Muslims adhere equally or sufficiently or properly to Islam, and this is nowhere held in the argument.

    B/ If some ideologies cause and enable terrorism, not all ideologies cause and enable terrorism. Different and opposite acts correspond respectively to different and opposite justifications/instructions.

    ----------
     
    Last edited:
    Resign

    Resign

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What's up with MTV?

    Did you read the article ?
    i bet you didn't

    MTV is saying exactly what every single sovereign Christian is saying in this country


    لذا، الأجدى بالقادة المسيحيين أن يستيقظوا قبل فوات الأوان لأنّ صلاحيات مواقعهم إلى زوال بسبب خلافاتهم وصراعاتهم وأحقادهم في سبيل الوصول إلى رئاسة الجمهوريّة وتعيين الأزلام في المناصب والمراكز الإدارية. والأنكى أنّه عندما يتعرّض أحد قادة المسيحيّين إلى هجوم إعلامي أو إتهام، تهبّ قواعده الشعبيّة للدفاع الأعمى عنه...
    أنقذوا أنفسكم أيّها المسيحيون، قبل أن تكونوا أنتم سبب زوالكم في لبنان.
     
    SoFP1

    SoFP1

    The Chosen One
    Orange Room Supporter
    Did you read the article ?
    i bet you didn't

    MTV is saying exactly what every single sovereign Christian is saying in this country


    لذا، الأجدى بالقادة المسيحيين أن يستيقظوا قبل فوات الأوان لأنّ صلاحيات مواقعهم إلى زوال بسبب خلافاتهم وصراعاتهم وأحقادهم في سبيل الوصول إلى رئاسة الجمهوريّة وتعيين الأزلام في المناصب والمراكز الإدارية. والأنكى أنّه عندما يتعرّض أحد قادة المسيحيّين إلى هجوم إعلامي أو إتهام، تهبّ قواعده الشعبيّة للدفاع الأعمى عنه...
    أنقذوا أنفسكم أيّها المسيحيون، قبل أن تكونوا أنتم سبب زوالكم في لبنان.
    You bet I didn't? Mish aleel...
     
    Resign

    Resign

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What did I post ya zake? Is it time to promote religious fear right now? I asked a freakin' question. 🤦‍♂️
    ba3dak 3am betchere3

    What MTV is warning about is real
    We say it daily on this very forum
    The article is calling Christian parties to wake up and unite to guarantee they have a role in the new Lebanon that we’re not sure how it’s going to look like.
    Yes, precisely, This is the time for such article.
     
    Nonan

    Nonan

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You have completely lost your mind in prejudice and hatred. What is a "democratic religion"? For example, did you guys vote for Jesus to become whatever you believe he is? And how do schools marking a holiday offend you so much to make a senseless statement?
    The twelve Apostles were all selected on a 6 and 6 mkarrar... The only hold up was Matthew, the Apostle of Finance. His candidacy was held up for months because the Beit LaHm agreement gave that position to a Shiite...
     
    Top