Oh look, you have never read quran. Have you read the old testament? This is some seriously sick shit there.
I have read both and both are rather nasty.
You have thousands of Christians going to African countries to convince them to change the laws in order to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death.
Do you have a reference for that?
I would have thought that as long as the US has them we don't need them.
I would feel safer knowing that if a nuke were smuggled into a British dockyard we could say "set it off and your country gets the same". The USA might go along with that - but I'm not sure
The whole UK nuclear deterrent is a colossal waste of money anyway. It would be far better to get rid of them (who do they deter?
With Pakistan having nuclear weapons and Iran working on them I think it would be good to keep them.
Please note, it is now 1370-something according to islamic calendar, as it starts from Mohamed's flight.
During the 1370s, christians were very busy beheading, hanging and burning people, just because they had a different opinion on religion or were considered witches and sorcerers or suggested better methods to stop pestilence beyond prayers. Furthermore, in that era entire armies of christians chopped up each other on the battlefields over who was to become the next king or whether the Pope should be above the Emperor or vica versa. By now, most christian nations have grown up and no longer do such things.
Thus, I suggest islamic calendar 2000-something will see a lot of muslim computer chip engineers and software designers, who don't even know how to use a knife or an RPG (the non-dungeon type).
If you go along the lines that we should allow it because Christians did the same thing hundreds of years ago there will never be peace. for one thing it is by no means certain that the same thing will happen in Islam. The Quran has a lot of direct instructions to murder, rape, and subjugate non believers - becoming a peaceful religion would mean seeing a lot of the Qur'an as incorrect, whereas for Christians it largely meant ignoring the Old testament - which the theology itself made easy.
That said Judaism has largely come to terms with the violent passages in the Old testament, so its not impossible. The thing is even if it does happen, and you are content to let the Muslims continue in barbarism until 2700 then what's to say that some other religion won't be violent then? Will your descendants then say "oh well the Christians and Muslims used to be like this so lets give them a few centuries of barbarism?"
You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?
Yeah. No true Christian would do anything like that, except for the Army of God, IRA, the NLFT (who forcibly convert people, as well as using rape as a means of intimidation), Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati (who was gunned down on behalf of Christians using World Vision as cover), NSCN, one of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland factions carried out ethnic cleansing leaving 900 people dead and 100,000 refugees, Maronite Christian militias in Lebanon targeting Muslims and Palestinian refugees ("People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing crucifixions and were calling themselves Christians."), the Iron Guard, the Lncieri, National-Christian Defense League, the KKK, the Lord's Resistance Army, and so forth.
No, Christians are the true Religion of Peace.
Except that they are no better.
So are you arguing that we should also hide any videos of Christian atrocities or that the Muslims should be able to commit rapes and murders because some Christians do to?
I should also point out on behalf of Christians that we don't have hundreds of Christians from the West going to join these groups, and that a majority of Christians condemn these atrocities whereas when Muslims commit atrocities we see thousands of them celebrating.
What surprises me is the "the source of the ammonium and methane is most likely from the breakdown of organic matter that was deposited in the area hundreds of thousands of years ago when Antarctica was warmer and the sea inundated West Antarctica." part. If the methane was already readily available, why didn't the organisms multiply to use up the methane faster? I guess some organism breaks down the organic matter to methane and thereby limits the availability for the methane eating organism. But over the course of a hundred thousand years I feel that such a limited ecosystem should have exhausted the resources long ago. What is the limiting factor that prevents this?
I guess everything is really slow because of the cold temperature. It would be nice to have a comment from someone that knows about this type of ecosystem.
I have 3 words for you..
Westboro Baptist Church
Although I do wonder if you will understand.
You mean that nasty organisation - which though it is thoroughly unpleasant is far better than Islam because it has never even threatened to kill someone, let alone murdering thousands, kidnapping thousands of women as sex slaves and chopping off journalist's heads?
A north vietnamese point-blank to the head execution...
A girl running from a napalm attack, her clothes half burned off...
Bodies piled in German concentration camps...
An explosion over Hiroshima...
Are these photos now forbidden as well?
But sharing them wouldn't be islamaphobic and upset the "religion of peace". The government is in full appeasement mode
So, how many 'accidentally' use next door's wifi rather than their own?
And how many of next-door's devices are on yours?
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.