Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

An epic fail in reading comprehension.....


I wrote:

If you can repackage the Pope's call to war by only changing the name of a deity, then that would be considered generic.

You wrote:

So - the leader of the Christian Church called a Holy War, called it in the name of Christ. BUT if he had used a different name, then it would be a generic Holy War??

No, old loon. I said if one could take a statement (not the Pope) switch around the names of a deity and repackage it to fit a declaration of war coming from a member of another religion, then that would be a generic statement.

Saying

X tells us to do Y because of A

to

Z tells us to do Y because of A

would be a generic statement.

The Pope said Jesus/Christian God told us to do Y because of A.

A Muslim could have said Z (Allah/Muhammad) told us to do Y because of A.

The Muslim only needed to change the name of the deity to get the same message across to appeal to Muslims, instead of Christians.

You also seem to be a bit confused over what 'taking the cross' meant in terms of the Crusade. You need to do a bit more homework! Had you read the speeches more carefully you would have read:

Yeah, actually I think you're the one confused.

Perhaps you can explain what I was confused about regarding my previous statement ?

I said that 'carrying one's cross' is specific to Christianity.

Actually I was well aware that Crusaders went through initiation rites that included wearing crosses of different colors corresponding to the country they were from.

If your knowledge of the crusades came from better sources than Google and Wikipedia, one wouldn't make elementary mistakes, such as claiming the crusaders killed Jews as acts of penance and the killings were not for earthly reasons.

I don't see what direct connection that has to do with the Pope's statement that Christians have their cross to carry - the context from the Pope I had in mind was referring to the common Christian usage that Christians are to go through hardships for their faith.

You know, but it would probably have been helpful to have directly quoted the Pope since he uses the phrase in the context that I was thinking of - ie., more than once.

As for Cardini - he admits there were theological reasons for the Holy Wars, but that they shouldn't be called Holy Wars? (He should have stuck to card tricks!

Perhaps you should join him. After all, you admit that OBL called for a Muslim holy war againsts the West, used 'theological reasons' to justify the killing of Jews and American civilians and quotes the texts and teachings of Islam as motivation for his Jihad.

Oh, and forget about the peaceful presence of Western troops who were invited by the Saudis to stay in Saudi Arabia. Apparently, that the troops weren't occupying Saudi Arabia, were paying the Saudis so they could stay, kept a low profile and that they were invited (and that no international body that I know of regarded their presence as an 'occupation') does not factor into OBL's calls for their ejection.

I really don't understand the logic in saying that the Pope calling for a Holy War in the name of Christ (in the speech you quoted) could be viewed as 'generic' because if he could have used a different religious figure instead of 'Christ'?

You seem to be saying that a Buddhist could have given the same speech but would have had to use Buddha instead of Christ and quoted Buddhist writings instead of the Bible - so therefore the Pope's call for a Christian Holy War is 'generic'.

That is brilliant logic! (Weird, but brilliant).

The problem is that the Pope didn't brush off a copy of 'How to call for a Holy War' where he had blanks with 'insert deity of choice here' written - he called a Holy War 'in the name of Christ'.

Please look up the meanings of the words 'generic' and 'specific'.



Anyway, it shows what strange logic loops you have to jump through to justify your silly statement:

event horizon wrote:.. after all, the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

The Pope commands the 'soldiers of Christ', wearing crosses as a 'sign of soldiery', to go and kill the 'vile race' of 'infidels' because 'Christ Commands It' - and you try to spin this as a 'generic' war that is not religious. Heck, even the historian you quote says there was a theological reason for the call to Holy War!

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Cheers,
Shafique

The Pope commands the 'soldiers of Christ', wearing crosses as a 'sign of soldiery', to go and kill the 'vile race' of 'infidels' because 'Christ Commands It'

Hence I said:

the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

and

If you can repackage the Pope's call to war by only changing the name of a deity, then that would be considered generic.

The only statement that was specific in the post was for Christians to wear a cross patched on their clothes.

LoL.

You fail at basic reading comprehensions *after* something has been repeated to you several times.

You seem to be saying that a Buddhist could have given the same speech but would have had to use Buddha instead of Christ and quoted Buddhist writings instead of the Bible - so therefore the Pope's call for a Christian Holy War is 'generic'.

Obviously the passages/references from the Bible wouldn't be generic. The point is, where the Pope uses terms and concepts that are exclusive to Christianity, it is typically not in an inherently violent/militant context.

Oh forget it. I explained this to you several times now.

That is brilliant logic! (Weird, but brilliant).

Perhaps we should examine your logic again.

Muslim calls for Muslim holy war against non-Muslims, cites texts and teachings of Islam - not religious

Christian calls for war against non-Christians, does not cite texts and teachings of Christianity - religious

Are we at your level of 'brilliant' logic yet ?

The problem is that the Pope didn't brush off a copy of 'How to call for a Holy War' where he had blanks with 'insert deity of choice here' written - he called a Holy War 'in the name of Christ'.

Where the Pope call for a holy war. You claim he explicitly called for one. Quote the Pope where he says 'go on a holy war'.

Heck, even the historian you quote says there was a theological reason for the call to Holy War!

I thought the historian said that it wasn't a holy war and gave the reasons why - the Pope did not seek to expand Christianity and oppress non-believers. The Pope did not seek to gain new converts.

OTOH, OBL is clear that he seeks the establishment of a kalifa and the subjugation of non-believers in his future Islamic state, in addition to the conquest of Islam over the world.

Oh yeah, and OBL explicitly calls for a Muslim holy war against non-believers and apostates.

But why let these facts get in the way of loon logic ???

Did you look up the words 'generic' and 'specific'?

I doubted that Loons had a different version of history when it came to claiming that the Crusades weren't Holy Wars - and was proved right when you selectively quoted a speech which had Urban calling for a Christian Holy War - but I am surprised that you are now trying to re-define 'generic' to get you out of a hole.

event horizon wrote:.. after all, the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

Let me know if you find anyone who agrees with you on this point (that the Pope's call for a Christian Holy War was generic, because you think if he was a Buddhist he could have substituted 'Buddha' for 'Christ' in his speech calling for the first crusade)

You're turning into the Mr Bean of debaters, young one.

Pope calls for a Holy War in the name of Christ and you first argue it wasn't a Holy War, but now argue (after having the words of the speech quoted to you) that it was a 'generic' call to Holy War.

Cheers,
Shafique

It's always interesting to see what one chooses to respond to and what to ignore.

The reader's digest over the last few pages has boiled down to:

An unsupported claim that the Pope 'explicitly' called for a 'holy war'.

Loon logic that the Crusades were religious but OBL's fatwa against the US was not. Quotes were highlighted from the Pope's call to arms and each highlighted passage from the Pope was countered from a passage from OBL's fatwa - yet, our resident loon ignored the quotes from OBL's fatwa.

Our resident loon who refuses to address the actual reasons the Pope gives for going to war against the Turks.

Our resident loon who dismisses the quotes provided in this thread from OBL showing that his 'grievances' against the West are far more than just political.

Did you look up the definitions of words 'generic' and 'specific'?

Just calling me a 'loon' won't change the fact you seem to be confused about whether to back up your initial claim that the Crusades were Holy Wars or the later funny statement that

event horizon wrote:.. after all, the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

Kudos, though, when finally faced with the fact that Urban called for a Holy War in the name of Christ (well, more than this - 'Christ Commands It' he said) - you changed your argument to the bizare 'well, it was done in the name of Christ, but hey if we stand on one leg and squint - we can make an argument that this is a generic call for a Holy War'!!

LOL

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique must have forgotten that his 'big' argument in support of his belief that the Pope's call to arms was religious has already been countered with quotes from OBL's fatwa - explicitly calling for Jihad against the West and Jews, stating 'Allah orders' Muslims to kill Jews and Americans, and OBL's fatwa quoting the texts and teachings of Islam as justification for war against non-believers.

Another example of treating Islam with lesser standards than Christianity.

I'm not the one who keeps changing their mind or redefining English words (such as generic)

event horizon wrote:.. after all, the Pope's call for war is pretty generic, any religious group that believes in one God could have written it.

At least we've discovered you were just being a rogue loon when you tried to claim that the Crusades weren't Holy Wars.

I've been consistent - and if you look at the title of this thread (which you named), given you now agree that the Crusades were a Holy War... well, you can fill in the rest.

Cheers,
Shafique

Did OBL and the Times Square bomber declare a holy war ?

So, we agree that the Crusades were a Holy War now?

I've quoted Bin Laden's reasons for 9/11 - heck, there's even a thread detailing the reasons for it. Ditto the Tim McVeigh wannabe.

So, given your thread title - I agree with you, the Crusades were indeed religious wars. Hence the other is political. Well done.

Cheers,
Shafique

So, given your thread title - I agree with you, the Crusades were indeed religious wars. Hence the other is political. Well done.

What's funny is that your argument is so contradictory that you don't even notice it.

Perhaps this is a result of a poor education ?

Your argument that the crusades were religious because they were 'holy wars' ignores that the attacks of 9/11 were also considered holy wars by OBL.

But, but, your argument is that OBL gave political reasons for his attacks (never mind the quotes from the other thread, where OBL's reasons are wholly religious).

Great, the Pope also gives political reasons for the launching of the crusades.

What's more, the Pope never quotes passages of the Bible to justify the crusades and doesn't provide contradictory reasons for the launching of the crusade.

Let me know if your education was so lacking that you don't see the contradictions in your logic.

I'm not the one who is confused about the meaning of the word generic.

So, so we or do we not agree that the Crusades were a Holy war called 'in the name of Christ' to kill the 'vile race' of 'infidels' because 'Christ Commands It'? Or have you changed your mind again?

As for making fun of your thread title - that's a bit odd, given you typed out the title. I happen to agree with you, one is religious and one is political.

Cheers,
Shafique

So, so we or do we not agree that the Crusades were a Holy war called 'in the name of Christ' to kill the 'vile race' of 'infidels' because 'Christ Commands It'? Or have you changed your mind again?

LoL.

OBL's fatwa is a 'Jihad' on the 'orders of Allah' to kill Americans and Jews because the Koran commands war against non-Muslims.

Agree or disagree ?

So, when faced with Urban's call for a Holy War in the name of Christ, your response is the Mooslims are just as bad? (Even though we have threads which explain Bin Laden's explanation, in his own words, in full)

At least we've gone beyond the ridiculous statements 'Crusades weren't Holy Wars' and 'They were Generic, because you could have substituted Buddha for 'Christ' in the Pope's speech calling for a Holy War'.


In a way, I'm disappointed that your spiel turned out to be rogue loon beliefs rather than something that Guru Bob taught you - now that would be newsworthy!!

Cheers,
Shafique

So, when faced with Urban's call for a Holy War in the name of Christ, your response is the Mooslims are just as bad? (Even though we have threads which explain Bin Laden's explanation, in his own words, in full)

We have this thread where statements from the Pope have shown that his call to arms was political, not religious.

Religious rhetoric aside, the Pope called for war against the Turks/Arabs (not all non-believers) because of Turkish/Arab occupation and aggression against Christians.

In any event, I have only mentioned OBL's call for a holy war against the US after you first used in your argument the Pope's alleged 'explicit' call for a holy war as evidence the crusade was religious.

As I said, it should speak volumes that you don't see the contradictions in your logic.

Yes, smoke and mirrors aside, the Crusades were a Christian Holy War called by the Pope.

Now, look at thread title and my point is made. Thanks.

Cheers,
Shafique

9/11 was a Muslim Holy War called by OBL.

So why did you type out the thread title - surely you should have written:
"I believe 9/11 is a Holy War despite what Bin Laden says, and I believe they are like the Christian Holy War called by Urban II"

We could have avoided the amusing arguments from you, like 'Crusades weren't a Holy War' and 'the Holy War called by the Pope was 'generic' because Christ could be replaced by Buddha' etc!


Cheers,
Shafique

"I believe 9/11 is a Holy War despite what Bin Laden says, and I believe they are like the Christian Holy War called by Urban II"

Let's see the quotes where OBL says that 9/11 wasn't a holy war.

OBL says the killing of Americans and Jews is an order from Allah and he declared Jihad (holy war) against American civilians and world Jewry.

Perhaps you're mistaken and confused OBL's clear statements for holy war for mostly benign and generic comments from the Pope - who justified his call to arms to end Muslim occupation of Christian lands and Turkish assault on the Byzantine empire ?

We could have avoided the amusing arguments from you, like 'Crusades weren't a Holy War' and 'the Holy War called by the Pope was 'generic' because Christ could be replaced by Buddha' etc!

What could clearer than titling a declaration of war against the West and Jews as a 'Jihad' ?

Hmm - so now we are avoiding the Crusades altogether now are we?

A wise move indeed - given the ridiculous arguments from you, like 'Crusades weren't a Holy War' and 'the Holy War called by the Pope was 'generic' because Christ could be replaced by Buddha' etc!

Just clarify that you've abandoned these beliefs now.

As for Bin Laden's motivations for 9/11 - we have a thread that explains this in detail, with full quotes to his explanation for 9/11. Quite clearly political if you read his explanations there.

Cheers,
Shafique

Did OBL call for a Muslim Holy War (Jihad) against the US ?

Why are you avoiding the question posed and asking another question:

Just clarify that you've abandoned these beliefs now.

As for Bin Laden's motivations for 9/11 - we have a thread that explains this in detail, with full quotes to his explanation for 9/11. Quite clearly political if you read his explanations there.

Have you abandoned the arguments that the 'Crusades weren't holy wars' and 'the Holy War called by the Pope was 'generic' because Christ could be replaced by Buddha'?


I happen to agree with your thread title - the Crusades were a Holy War, therefore 9/11 attacks were political. I thank you (again).

BTW - you also appear to be avoiding the question about talking donkeys in the Bible and whether you agree with the Christians who believe this did happen, or whether you agree with those who say this literally didn't happen (and give some explanation for it being in the Bible). Rather than repeating the same questions here, you may wish to address this question in the Religion forum - but then again, I understand you don't like hard questions.

Cheers,
Shafique

Enough with the smoke and mirrors, wide one - address directly the reasons for the crusade by the Pope, where he says the reasons are political. I know you desperately wish to believe the spin - but why do you not address the reasons given for the crusades by the Pope?

All I did was ask whether you had given up your silly argument that the Crusades weren't holy wars and that the Pope called for a 'generic' Holy War because had he said 'Buddha' instead of 'Christ' it would have still made sense?

Have you given up these arguments now?

If so, then what's all the fuss about now? Pope calls for a Christian Holy War, and Bin Laden gives political reasons for 9/11 - hence your title of this thread is spot on. I thank you again.

BTW - you also appear to be avoiding the question about talking donkeys in the Bible and whether you agree with the Christians who believe this did happen, or whether you agree with those who say this literally didn't happen (and give some explanation for it being in the Bible). Rather than repeating the same questions here, you may wish to address this question in the Religion forum - but then again, I understand you don't like hard questions.

Cheers,
Shafique

So now you're denying that OBL called for a Muslim Holy War (Jihad) against non-Muslims ?

Let me know when you're ready to address the political reasons the Pope gives for declaring a war against the Turks.

Strange, I thought I asked you whether you had given up your silly argument that the Crusades weren't a Holy war and the sillier argument that the Holy War called by Urban was 'generic' because he used the word Christ in it to justify the war, and could have used Buddha instead?

Why are you avoiding this? Could it be that you still believe in these silly arguments?


BTW - you also appear to be avoiding the question about talking donkeys in the Bible and whether you agree with the Christians who believe this did happen, or whether you agree with those who say this literally didn't happen (and give some explanation for it being in the Bible). Rather than repeating the same questions here, you may wish to address this question in the Religion forum - but then again, I understand you don't like hard questions.


Cheers,
Shafique

I simply asked why you believe the spin rather than the Pope's explanations about why the crusade was carried out? (In his speeches, he speaks specifically about the reasons for the crusade - what is his explanation for the crusade?)

I couldn't have been clearer. Will you address this question?

I am pretty clear about what you're asking and what you're avoiding.

So, have you now given up the silly arguments that the Crusades weren't Holy Wars and that Urban's call for Holy War was generic? (I mean the fact you argued both these points shows how they are silly)

And, will you answer the question about talking Donkeys or not?

Cheers,
Shafique

So what were the reasons for the crusade that were given by the Pope ?

Are you embarrased to tell us whether you've given up the silly arguments that the Crusades were not a Holy War or not? And the sillier argument that the Urban's call for Holy War was generic?

Why avoid the question?

I've already quoted Urban calling for a Holy War - and you've argued that these calls are 'generic'

Surely you can't now be de-evolving into a previous loon argument that the Crusades weren't a Holy War??

Are you a de-evolving loon?

cheers,
Shafique