Why does America care about countries being a islamic state?

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

When Iran became an islamic state the US government had much critism on them. There is also a lot of critism of islamic law.faisal123456

Because they are scared of them

theocracies have very violent histories.

Dracargen

accuracy restored.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

theocracies have very violent histories.

Hewkii

accuracy restored.

What about Tibet? :P

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

theocracies have very violent histories.

Hewkii

accuracy restored.

Within the context of the thread, the statement was accurate. Islamic theocracies do have a history of being very violent.

Within the context of the thread, the statement was accurate. Islamic theocracies do have a history of being very violent.

Frattracide

it's not mutually exclusive to Islamic theocracies, though, or theocracies in general.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

Hewkii

accuracy restored.

Context restored.

Because theocracies tend to suck.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Within the context of the thread, the statement was accurate. Islamic theocracies do have a history of being very violent.

Hewkii

it's not mutually exclusive to Islamic theocracies, though, or theocracies in general.

I agree. I'm just saying his statement wasn't inaccurate. Which is pedantic on my part I know, but I'm board and there is nothing good on the history channel right now.

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

Dracargen

So do Christian Theocracies.....why be a hypocrite?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

Palax

So do Christian Theocracies.....why be a hypocrite?

...where is he being a hypocrite?

When Iran became an islamic state the US government had much critism on them. There is also a lot of critism of islamic law.faisal123456

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm hoping that it's the humanitarian issues that arise from islamic states. Such as women not having rights, or practicing the age old custom of "stoning" for punishment.

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

The_Ish

I've know this guy well enough to know where he stands on religion.

So do Christian Theocracies.....why be a hypocrite?

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

Islamic theocracies have very violent histories.

Palax

So do Christian Theocracies.....why be a hypocrite?

I agree. I'm just saying his statement wasn't inaccurate. Which is pedantic on my part I know, but I'm board and there is nothing good on the history channel right now.

Frattracide

it's not inaccurate, sure, it's just misleading.

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

Palax

Does not mean he is not against Christian theology. He is Christian, not a Christian socialist.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I agree. I'm just saying his statement wasn't inaccurate. Which is pedantic on my part I know, but I'm board and there is nothing good on the history channel right now.

Hewkii

it's not inaccurate, sure, it's just misleading.

What part of his statement was misleading? Islamic theocracies do have a history of being violent.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

The_Ish

Does not mean he is not against Christian theology. He is Christian, not a Christian socialist.

Let's try this again........If an Islamic state is forming and we criticize them saying, "Islamic Theocracies have very violent histories." Then we would be hypocrites, because very violent histories aren't exclusive to Islamic states. I threw in the Christian part to strike a nerve.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Palax"]

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

Palax

Does not mean he is not against Christian theology. He is Christian, not a Christian socialist.

Let's try this again........If an Islamic state is forming and we criticize them saying, "Islamic Theocracies have very violent histories." Then we would be hypocrites, because very violent histories aren't exclusive to Islamic states. I threw in the Christian part to strike a nerve.

That doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, unless the person prefers other kinds of theocracies.

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Palax"]

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

The_Ish

Does not mean he is not against Christian theology. He is Christian, not a Christian socialist.

Let's try this again........If an Islamic state is forming and we criticize them saying, "Islamic Theocracies have very violent histories." Then we would be hypocrites, because very violent histories aren't exclusive to Islamic states. I threw in the Christian part to strike a nerve.

That doesn't make anyone a hypocrite, unless the person prefers other kinds of theocracies.

The hypocrite part is referring to the violent histories bit.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Palax"]

Ok I'll clarify. I'm not insinuating he's the hypocrite. I'm stating that it would be hypocrite like behavior to use this kind of thinking as an excuse.

Palax

Does not mean he is not against Christian theology. He is Christian, not a Christian socialist.

Let's try this again........If an Islamic state is forming and we criticize them saying, "Islamic Theocracies have very violent histories." Then we would be hypocrites, because very violent histories aren't exclusive to Islamic states.

I never said "ONLY Islamic theocracies have violent histories," nor did I say "Islamic theocracies are the only political system with violent histories." This topic is about Islam states and their critics, so I (unlike some people) kept the context within Islamic theocracies.

I threw in the Christian part to strike a nerve.Palax

No ****? Quite mature of you, throwing out accusations of hypocrisy when there is none, and then trying to "strike a nerve" by using my belief system even though it has nothing to do with the topic. :lol:

The hypocrite part is referring to the violent histories bit.

Palax

How is that hypocritical? No one here has stated that any other kind of theocracy is better in any way, except perhaps when Jointed implied that Tibet's government is not as violent as other theocracies.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

The hypocrite part is referring to the violent histories bit.

The_Ish

How is that hypocritical? No one here has stated that any other kind of theocracy is better in any way, except perhaps when Jointed implied that Tibet's government is not as violent as other theocracies.

I'm just going to stop there, and try to get back on topic, care to come with or would you prefer to argue about the meaning of hypocrite some more?

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Palax"]

The hypocrite part is referring to the violent histories bit.

Palax

How is that hypocritical? No one here has stated that any other kind of theocracy is better in any way, except perhaps when Jointed implied that Tibet's government is not as violent as other theocracies.

I'm just going to stop there, and try to get back on topic, care to come with or would you prefer to argue about the meaning of hypocrite some more?

I'd like to argue about the meaning of "hypocrite" some more, since you were kind enough to take the time to insult me with a word you don't even know.:lol:

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Palax"]

The hypocrite part is referring to the violent histories bit.

Dracargen

How is that hypocritical? No one here has stated that any other kind of theocracy is better in any way, except perhaps when Jointed implied that Tibet's government is not as violent as other theocracies.

I'm just going to stop there, and try to get back on topic, care to come with or would you prefer to argue about the meaning of hypocrite some more?

I'd like to argue about the definition of "hypocrite" some more, since you were kind enough to take the time to insult me with a word you don't even know.:lol:

So start a new thread and spare us of your spam.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

theocracies have very violent histories.

jointed

accuracy restored.

What about Tibet? :P

the original quote was "Islamic theocracies have very violent histories." emphasis on the Islamic part

Actually the topic of the thread, Drcargen, is about Islamic states and specifically AMERICA'S criticism of such.Palax

America does not like the violent histories of Islamic theocracies.

Better?

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

theocracies have very violent histories.

hagadorn

accuracy restored.

What about Tibet? :P

the original quote was "Islamic theocracies have very violent histories." emphasis on the Islamic part

The gamespot community can't comprehend context.

So start a new thread and spare us of your spam.

Palax

And you call me a hypocrite? Which of us started this, hmm? Which of us threw out a completely baseless accusation that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

It sure as hell wasn't me.

The gamespot community can't comprehend context.

Frattracide

then as a whole we fail.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

The gamespot community can't comprehend context.

hagadorn

then as a whole we fail.

Don't drag me down with you :evil:

[QUOTE="Palax"]Actually the topic of the thread, Drcargen, is about Islamic states and specifically AMERICA'S criticism of such.Dracargen

America does not like the violent histories of Islamic theocracies.

Better?

As I'm sure the same could be said of America's violent histories. That kind of thinking won't get you anywhere except into an argument, because honestly the whole statement is ridiculous, why are you so focused on violent histories? I posted this earlier, and I thought it was a reasonable logical answer, much better than yours :

"Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm hoping that it's the humanitarian issues that arise from islamic states. Such as women not having rights, or practicing the age old custom of "stoning" for punishment."

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

[QUOTE="Palax"]Actually the topic of the thread, Drcargen, is about Islamic states and specifically AMERICA'S criticism of such.Palax

America does not like the violent histories of Islamic theocracies.

Better?

As I'm sure the same could be said of America's violent histories. That kind of thinking won't get you anywhere except into an argument, because honestly the whole statement is ridiculous, why are you so focused on violent histories? I posted this earlier, and I thought it was a reasonable logical answer, much better than yours :

"Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm hoping that it's the humanitarian issues that arise from islamic states. Such as women not having rights, or practicing the age old custom of "stoning" for punishment."

America is not the one being criticized, so America's violent history is absolutely irrlevant to this topic. :roll:

I would be a hypocrite if I condoned the American violence over the Islamic violence, and I did no such thing. You honestly do not know the definition of "hypocrite" at all, do you?

[QUOTE="Palax"]

So start a new thread and spare us of your spam.

Dracargen

And you call me a hypocrite? Which of us started this, hmm? Which of us threw out a completely baseless accusation that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

It sure as hell wasn't me.

You still dwelling on that whole hypocrite thing? I've been trying to ignore you because I already explained it wasn't you I called a hypocrite, but you insist on ignoring that and continuing this charade just for the pure sake of you arguing.

So just give it up, man, stop acting like a child and using the "he started it" line.

What part of his statement was misleading? Islamic theocracies do have a history of being violent.

Frattracide

as do other theocracies, but one could make the assumption based on this post that Islamic theocracies are...renowned for being so.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Palax"]

So start a new thread and spare us of your spam.

Palax

And you call me a hypocrite? Which of us started this, hmm? Which of us threw out a completely baseless accusation that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

It sure as hell wasn't me.

You still dwelling on that whole hypocrite thing? I've been trying to ignore you because I already explained it wasn't you I called a hypocrite, but you insist on ignoring that and continuing this charade just for the pure sake of you arguing.

So just give it up, man, stop acting like a child and using the "he started it" line.

You implied that I used hypocrisy in my post, which in turn would make me a hypocrite. Context isn't your strong suit, is it?

When I'm insulted, I'll continue arguing. Sucks for you.

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Palax"]

So start a new thread and spare us of your spam.

Dracargen

And you call me a hypocrite? Which of us started this, hmm? Which of us threw out a completely baseless accusation that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic?

It sure as hell wasn't me.

You still dwelling on that whole hypocrite thing? I've been trying to ignore you because I already explained it wasn't you I called a hypocrite, but you insist on ignoring that and continuing this charade just for the pure sake of you arguing.

So just give it up, man, stop acting like a child and using the "he started it" line.

You implied that I used hypocrisy in my post, which in turn would make me a hypocrite. Context isn't your strong suit, is it?

When I'm insulted, I'll continue arguing. Sucks for you.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. Maybe one day you'll learn to control your anger.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

What part of his statement was misleading? Islamic theocracies do have a history of being violent.

Hewkii

as do other theocracies, but one could make the assumption based on this post that Islamic theocracies are...renowned for being so.

They are "renowned for being so." But the poster didn't make a statement that only Islamic Theocracies have a history of violence. Within the context of the topic it was accurate and not misleading.

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. Maybe one day you'll learn to control your anger.

Palax

And maybe one day you'll learn that mindlessly insulting anyone who has a different opinion than yours based on sad reading comprehension is childish.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

What part of his statement was misleading? Islamic theocracies do have a history of being violent.

Frattracide

as do other theocracies, but one could make the assumption based on this post that Islamic theocracies are...renowned for being so.

They are "renowned for being so." But the poster didn't make a statement that only Islamic Theocracies have a history of violence. Within the context of the topic it was accurate and not misleading.

If you look back far enough then you would see that every country at some point in time could be perceived as having a violent history. I don't think the post was inaccurate or misleading, but I do think that it was a pathetic answer to the question, and by being so pathetic I gathered that it was a statement made out of prejudice.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

I'm sorry that you feel insulted. Maybe one day you'll learn to control your anger.

Dracargen

And maybe one day you'll learn that mindlessly insulting anyone who has a different opinion than yours based on sad reading comprehension is childish.

Nobody insulted you, buddy, stop manifesting lies to form an argument.