True Colours
January 1st 2008 20:58
People can be good at hiding what they think or truly believe, though alcohol and anger have a habit of showing what they really think. Such people as Mel Gibson and Michael Richards have proven to be apt examples, other slightly lesser known ones belong to that of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Rielly though we give them some exemption because they're always slightly crazy in the head.
In a previous post I mentioned how I did not want to point out the obvious flaws in an article written by someone for whom I feel that I should have great respect for. However I should emphasize the reason for that was to keep the article in context rather than going off in tangents. Here however my intention is to show the sheer irrationality of those who hate and their inability to truly cover up their hate.
Believe you me, I loath to give this woman any sort of attention, but in the name of fairness I must. She has of course written many articles and has had nothing good to say about Islam. She claims to know Muslims though she has shown no evidence of the fact, much less has she shown any respect to Islam as a whole which leads to the assumption that she is in fact lying. One of her more recent articles was on the assasination of Bhutto in which she says that
The flaws in her argument are self evident, for one thing Bhutto was Muslim, second of all her supporters were Muslim, yet she seldom mentions that, however she is happy to suggest the doctors were Muslim. The question of who is or isn't Muslim is really a none issue, Bhutto was once elected the Prime Minister of Pakistan by Muslims and perhaps she was killed by a Muslim. To argue that Islam is a hateful religion then try and justify her election creates an obvious paradox. To that end we can only conclude that Islam has very little to do with her assasination and indeed her election, such reason however falls through Bradish's head as she continues her tirade.
Another interesting point is how she has up until this point refused to acknowledge Musharafs position as a dictator yet she happily claims another man, Hugo Chavez is an oppressive tyrant despite the fact he was elected into government democratically wherein Musharaf has artifically increased his presidential term indefinitely. The question here is not one of reason, she knows full well the futility of arguing anything with factual merit because she recognizes that she is wrong. However she sees herself as justified because Islam is evil and this fact is indesputable.
The only reason she can even live with herself is that she has managed to convince her tiny little brain that Christianity is so much superior to Islam that just believing in Jesus Christ makes her perfect enough to criticize all others without the need for remorse. If her views are challenged she is but being oppressed by those who hate freedom. She is like a child who must have her candy and anyone who disagrees, be it the dentist, her father or mother, is wrong because the candy tastes nice therefore cannot possibly cause any harm.
In the same breath she says that Muslims are not all terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims (an over-exaggeration in its own right) she puts Islam into question as a religion by putting it in quotes,
She cannot hide her hate when angry yet claims to have no hate anyway. While she says she only hates those Muslims who kill in their gods name (which is a fine and respectable thing to do), she attacks Muslims as a whole. Not once has she made a distinction between extremists and Muslims though she has implied they are all the same (above quote being one). The beauty of it is in her typical hate filled tirades she exposes the true colours of others, one preacher by the name of Lester Caudill says in the following post that
I very much doubt a man who can strangle his own daughter to death will mind much that he's put in prison with a pigs blanket. I'm sure Lester knows this too, what he's expressing is not outrage at this one man but hatred against Islam as a whole.
What I see in this preacher is harboured hate and a complete disregard of the Christian faith as a whole. I'm not one to tell anyone what their religion is all about, though Jesus Christ did say 'love thy enemy' and went to great lengths to foster peace between people, not blind hate as Lester shows. As I wrote in an early post, those with strength control their anger, through that they have a clearer understanding of the world. Not one in which there is a 'firm understanding between right and wrong' but one in which the bad and the ugly are not used to create hate and anger.
I am yet to see proof of any of the two bloggers I've mentioned here show any courtesy to their fellow man when angry. When calm they may look fine on the whole, when angry their true colours shine through. They then proceed to proclaim innocence once their anger has cooled and then they act confused as to why no one else believes what they say anymore. People are already expected to prove their claims, even the most credible of us will be shot down for making a claim with no actual backing. Yet these two people are so blinded by hate and so convinced they are, through this hate, on the right side they don't even see it fit to prove any of their claims. Then they cry foul when someone challenges them to prove their claims.
When there's room given to express hate it not only invokes hate in those who hold it but it encourages it too. It's like a volcano exploding after laying dormant for so long. Sure it looks so magnificent and pristine, the soil around it is rich in minerals fostering a lot of plant growth. But you know it's a volcano, and you know it'll blow sooner or later.
In a previous post I mentioned how I did not want to point out the obvious flaws in an article written by someone for whom I feel that I should have great respect for. However I should emphasize the reason for that was to keep the article in context rather than going off in tangents. Here however my intention is to show the sheer irrationality of those who hate and their inability to truly cover up their hate.
Believe you me, I loath to give this woman any sort of attention, but in the name of fairness I must. She has of course written many articles and has had nothing good to say about Islam. She claims to know Muslims though she has shown no evidence of the fact, much less has she shown any respect to Islam as a whole which leads to the assumption that she is in fact lying. One of her more recent articles was on the assasination of Bhutto in which she says that
She seemed to actually believe that those kind, gentle, peaceful, loving Muslims were devoted to their women and that she had nothing to fear from them. Her conviction was so strong that she stood and waved to the crowd through the sun-roof right before she died. Those who were present (and film of the event!) prove that she was, indeed, shot, just before the explosion that killed twenty bystanders. But the good Muslim doctors who treated her and then pronounced her dead, are trying to tell everyone that she died of a skull fracture from bumping her head as she attempted to duck back inside the car after the bomb went off.
Another interesting point is how she has up until this point refused to acknowledge Musharafs position as a dictator yet she happily claims another man, Hugo Chavez is an oppressive tyrant despite the fact he was elected into government democratically wherein Musharaf has artifically increased his presidential term indefinitely. The question here is not one of reason, she knows full well the futility of arguing anything with factual merit because she recognizes that she is wrong. However she sees herself as justified because Islam is evil and this fact is indesputable.
The only reason she can even live with herself is that she has managed to convince her tiny little brain that Christianity is so much superior to Islam that just believing in Jesus Christ makes her perfect enough to criticize all others without the need for remorse. If her views are challenged she is but being oppressed by those who hate freedom. She is like a child who must have her candy and anyone who disagrees, be it the dentist, her father or mother, is wrong because the candy tastes nice therefore cannot possibly cause any harm.
In the same breath she says that Muslims are not all terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims (an over-exaggeration in its own right) she puts Islam into question as a religion by putting it in quotes,
I'll say this one more time for those of you who just didn't get it the first hundred times. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But all the terrorists ARE MUSLIMS! They kill even their own without compunction. Their "religion" is their excuse for cold blooded murder.
She cannot hide her hate when angry yet claims to have no hate anyway. While she says she only hates those Muslims who kill in their gods name (which is a fine and respectable thing to do), she attacks Muslims as a whole. Not once has she made a distinction between extremists and Muslims though she has implied they are all the same (above quote being one). The beauty of it is in her typical hate filled tirades she exposes the true colours of others, one preacher by the name of Lester Caudill says in the following post that
Hey S.L.
What they should do for this pig is to give pig feet and fat back, to eat everyday, with a nice pig skin blanket.
S.L. there won't be much said about this as they don't want to offend the great Muslim faith.
Lets see how many of the liberals that gives Christianity a hard time speaks up here.
What they should do for this pig is to give pig feet and fat back, to eat everyday, with a nice pig skin blanket.
S.L. there won't be much said about this as they don't want to offend the great Muslim faith.
Lets see how many of the liberals that gives Christianity a hard time speaks up here.
I very much doubt a man who can strangle his own daughter to death will mind much that he's put in prison with a pigs blanket. I'm sure Lester knows this too, what he's expressing is not outrage at this one man but hatred against Islam as a whole.
What I see in this preacher is harboured hate and a complete disregard of the Christian faith as a whole. I'm not one to tell anyone what their religion is all about, though Jesus Christ did say 'love thy enemy' and went to great lengths to foster peace between people, not blind hate as Lester shows. As I wrote in an early post, those with strength control their anger, through that they have a clearer understanding of the world. Not one in which there is a 'firm understanding between right and wrong' but one in which the bad and the ugly are not used to create hate and anger.
I am yet to see proof of any of the two bloggers I've mentioned here show any courtesy to their fellow man when angry. When calm they may look fine on the whole, when angry their true colours shine through. They then proceed to proclaim innocence once their anger has cooled and then they act confused as to why no one else believes what they say anymore. People are already expected to prove their claims, even the most credible of us will be shot down for making a claim with no actual backing. Yet these two people are so blinded by hate and so convinced they are, through this hate, on the right side they don't even see it fit to prove any of their claims. Then they cry foul when someone challenges them to prove their claims.
When there's room given to express hate it not only invokes hate in those who hold it but it encourages it too. It's like a volcano exploding after laying dormant for so long. Sure it looks so magnificent and pristine, the soil around it is rich in minerals fostering a lot of plant growth. But you know it's a volcano, and you know it'll blow sooner or later.
| 65 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
My concern is that the written word still has a lot of power, and that many younger or less worldly people might place some credence in her spewings--which is why I continue to challenge her (though I might as well spit into the wind; she avoids backing up her statements at all costs and retreats behind laughable insults when cornered)
But hey, you know--the logic isn't for her benefit, it's for those unfortunate enough to read her crap's benefit!
Thus speaketh I, the lesbian/transsexual/woman-hat ing terrorist who didn't serve in the Navy for 10 years--
D. Armenta
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
^ thats her thinking anyway
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
Whatta moron.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
considering how she doesn't trust anyone it's just reason to suspect she lies a lot and assumes everyone around her does so too.