Freedom of Speech and Religion [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Speech and Religion


snowbird
05-26-2012, 10:58
It seems that in Nashville, the entire corps of city taxi inspectors now has to go to reeducation camp ('sensitivity' training) because one of them said, about Muslims, "a lot of them blow up places".

One commentator's take: "Boy of boy! I'm glad they nipped this Islamophobia in the bud! I mean, when have Muslims blown up anything? In the last 5 minutes?"

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 11:29
It seems that in Nashville, the entire corps of city taxi inspectors now has to go to reeducation camp ('sensitivity' training) because one of them said, about Muslims, "a lot of them blow up places".

One commentator's take: "Boy of boy! I'm glad they nipped this Islamophobia in the bud! I mean, when have Muslims blown up anything? In the last 5 minutes?"

How can a city demand any such thing from private citizens?

Vic Hays
05-26-2012, 15:37
How can a city demand any such thing from private citizens?

The beast with the two lamblike (Christ like) horns is beginning to speak as dragon.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.
13:12 And he excercises all the power of the first beast before him, and causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 16:08
The beast with the two lamblike (Christ like) horns is beginning to speak as dragon.

Revelation 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.
13:12 And he excercises all the power of the first beast before him, and causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

I get that. Fortunately, we aren't all the way there just yet. But, it sounds like Nashville has rather deep pockets for a rather large lawsuit, if they are demanding private citizens be forced to take sensitivity training regarding a specific religion.

kirgi08
05-26-2012, 18:05
They have a city permit,ergo the city can pull stunts like this.'08.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 18:29
I get that. Fortunately, we aren't all the way there just yet. But, it sounds like Nashville has rather deep pockets for a rather large lawsuit, if they are demanding private citizens be forced to take sensitivity training regarding a specific religion.As usual, the truth and snowbird's claims are wildly divergent.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120525/NEWS0202/305250056/Taxi-inspector-stereotypes-Muslim-drivers

Kingarthurhk
05-26-2012, 19:04
As usual, the truth and snowbird's claims are wildly divergent.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120525/NEWS0202/305250056/Taxi-inspector-stereotypes-Muslim-drivers

Ah, the joy of government work. One idiot publically drops the baton and everyone is getting down and counting them out.

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:58
As usual, the truth and snowbird's claims are wildly divergent.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120525/NEWS0202/305250056/Taxi-inspector-stereotypes-Muslim-drivers

Where?

Paul7
05-26-2012, 20:59
It seems that in Nashville, the entire corps of city taxi inspectors now has to go to reeducation camp ('sensitivity' training) because one of them said, about Muslims, "a lot of them blow up places".


Don't they?

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 21:25
Where?Seriously?
Snowbird's claim:It seems that in Nashville, the entire corps of city taxi inspectors now has to go to reeducation camp ('sensitivity' training) because one of them said, about Muslims, "a lot of them blow up places".
The Truth:City officials on Thursday recommended sensitivity training for all city inspectors of taxis, limousines and wrecker services after one of them said in an interview that most of the city’s drivers are Muslim and “a lot of them blow up places.”
Add to that the additional fact that the "entire corps of city taxi inspectors" is three people.

Animal Mother
05-26-2012, 21:26
Don't they?No, Muslim cab drivers in Nashville don't blow places up.

snowbird
05-27-2012, 07:41
No, Muslim cab drivers in Nashville don't blow places up.

Yet.

That we know of.

Question: how many of the 9/11 terrorists committed acts of terrorism prior to that date?

AM, do you deny that your 'politically-correct' world kow-tows to Islam?

Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but when Muslims do commit terrorist acts (and there have been 18,948 deadly Muslim terror attacks since 9/11, as of today), why does the Ummah (Muslim community) get drowned out by the sound of crickets chirping? Islam requires all Muslims to give zakat, "charity", which goes to support Muslim causes including jihad (terrorism).

snowbird
05-27-2012, 07:49
I get that. Fortunately, we aren't all the way there just yet. But, it sounds like Nashville has rather deep pockets for a rather large lawsuit, if they are demanding private citizens be forced to take sensitivity training regarding a specific religion.

I'll admit to not knowing all there is to know about this case. My closest connection to Nashville is listening to country-western music on my car radio.:)

Someone suggested that the drivers take the same class as the inspectors. Then they all could get together afterwards, have a beer and get to know each other. Unfortunately, in Islam, beer is harem (forbidden) while slaying infidels is halal (blessed by Allah).

Paul7
05-27-2012, 08:27
Seriously?
Snowbird's claim:
The Truth:
Add to that the additional fact that the "entire corps of city taxi inspectors" is three people.
Which would make it a true statement.

When you're an employee, what happens when you don't do something you're boss 'recommends'?

Paul7
05-27-2012, 08:28
No, Muslim cab drivers in Nashville don't blow places up.

Reread the OP, that was said about Muslims. Do they not blow things up, at least more often than any other group?

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:40
It seems that a statement of fact should carry no repercussions.

Not all muslims are violent jihadists, but an awful lot of violent jihadists do tend to be muslim.

Which is why we had a motto in Iraq. Be polite to everyone you meet, but always have a plan to kill every one of them.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 09:48
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but when Muslims do commit terrorist acts (and there have been 18,948 deadly Muslim terror attacks since 9/11, as of today), why does the Ummah (Muslim community) get drowned out by the sound of crickets chirping? Islam requires all Muslims to give zakat, "charity", which goes to support Muslim causes including jihad (terrorism).

Oh my God! Did snowbird really just say not every Muslim is a terrorist? Alhamdullilah! There is hope for you yet!

Until you read the rest of the paragraph..when he says zakat procedes finance terrorism, which he ignorantly refers to as jihad. Its a damn shame, a real waste.

Kingarthurhk
05-27-2012, 11:43
Oh my God! Did snowbird really just say not every Muslim is a terrorist? Alhamdullilah! There is hope for you yet!

Until you read the rest of the paragraph..when he says zakat procedes finance terrorism, which he ignorantly refers to as jihad. Its a damn shame, a real waste.

Interesting. I thought Islam was forbidden to take God's name in vain as we are. When you say God, I assume you mean Allah. But, I thought the principal was shared.

void *
05-27-2012, 13:12
Yet.

That we know of.

Question: how many of the 9/11 terrorists committed acts of terrorism prior to that date?

The U.S. intelligence community had received intel from other countries indicating that the 9/11 terrorists were in country and planning something, prior to the attacks. It was also known that some of them had terrorist ties. For instance, it was known that Mohamed Atta had trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Question: How many taxi cab drivers in Nashville have known terrorist ties? If you can answer that, then I think you would be justified in your approach to the situation, assuming that most of them actually had ties.

I suspect you can't, though, and are, as per usual, simply employing unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Edit: 0.00000026687323 deadly terror attacks per muslim per year (I might have the decimal point off by one one way or the other).

muscogee
05-27-2012, 13:27
Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but when Muslims do commit terrorist acts (and there have been 18,948 deadly Muslim terror attacks since 9/11, as of today), why does the Ummah (Muslim community) get drowned out by the sound of crickets chirping? Islam requires all Muslims to give zakat, "charity", which goes to support Muslim causes including jihad (terrorism).

How many Muslims have we blown up and shot n Iraq since 9/11? It's not terrorism if we do it?

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 13:34
How many Muslims have we blown up and shot n Iraq since 9/11? It's not terrorism if we do it?

I better check.......


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/sympathymeter.jpg

Nope, sympathy meter still reading pretty low.

muscogee
05-27-2012, 13:41
I better check.......


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/sympathymeter.jpg

Nope, sympathy meter still reading pretty low.

Missed the point. It's a war. We're giving much better than we're taking. We have no reason to whine.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 13:54
Missed the point. It's a war. We're giving much better than we're taking. We have no reason to whine.

Even reading that again, I hope you understand how one could make that mistake if that's not what you meant. My apologies anyway though.

One thing is certain, I do not like wars, but when you happen to be in one, it is MUCH better to win.

Akil8290
05-27-2012, 19:20
Interesting. I thought Islam was forbidden to take God's name in vain as we are. When you say God, I assume you mean Allah. But, I thought the principal was shared.

OMG is a common expression used by everybody in America at some time or another. Don't read so much into it.

In the interest of the dogmatic zealots here: Astaghfirullah.

Paul7
05-27-2012, 20:19
The U.S. intelligence community had received intel from other countries indicating that the 9/11 terrorists were in country and planning something, prior to the attacks. It was also known that some of them had terrorist ties. For instance, it was known that Mohamed Atta had trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Question: How many taxi cab drivers in Nashville have known terrorist ties? If you can answer that, then I think you would be justified in your approach to the situation, assuming that most of them actually had ties.

I suspect you can't, though, and are, as per usual, simply employing unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Edit: 0.00000026687323 deadly terror attacks per muslim per year (I might have the decimal point off by one one way or the other).

The point of the OP is, it is ridiculous for an employee to be 'recommended' to be reprogrammed because of an opinion. The war against free speech continues.

G26S239
05-27-2012, 20:33
How many Muslims have we blown up and shot n Iraq since 9/11? It's not terrorism if we do it?
No, what the US military is doing is not terrorism. Are you equating the actions of the US military with the actions of al Qaeda. al Shabeeb, Abu Sayaff et al?

RC-RAMIE
05-27-2012, 21:00
The point of the OP is, it is ridiculous for an employee to be 'recommended' to be reprogrammed because of an opinion. The war against free speech continues.

Freedom of speech is for protection against the government not work place.


....

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 22:55
Edit: 0.00000026687323 deadly terror attacks per muslim per year (I might have the decimal point off by one one way or the other).

Yeah well... There are a whole lot of them so that number really isn't as small as it looks.

(Kidding. I'm not a total math derp)

muscogee
05-27-2012, 23:04
Even reading that again, I hope you understand how one could make that mistake if that's not what you meant. My apologies anyway though.

One thing is certain, I do not like wars, but when you happen to be in one, it is MUCH better to win.

I agree. The terrorists are using guerrilla tactics we consider unethical but it's all they have left. They attacked two U.S. cities on 9/11 and we took down two countries and humiliated a third. We're way ahead.

muscogee
05-27-2012, 23:23
No, what the US military is doing is not terrorism. I agree. It's no more terrorism than what the other side is doing. Snowbird who keeps wanting this to be a Christian vs Muslim thing. I disagree. It's a war. In a war, people fight with whatever means they have available. Of course the other side is always unethical, no matter what side you're on.

Are you equating the actions of the US military with the actions of al Qaeda. al Shabeeb, Abu Sayaff et al?

Isn't that who we're fighting? Our motivation is the same (i.e. to win the war) and so far, our actions have been much more effective than theirs. We have killed more of them and destroyed more of their property than they have of ours. IMO, that's a good thing. If someone has to impose their will on someone else, I want to be us. Of course it would be best if everyone could just leave everyone else alone, but religious fanaticism and greed often get in the way of that.

void *
05-28-2012, 00:31
Yeah well... There are a whole lot of them so that number really isn't as small as it looks.

(Kidding. I'm not a total math derp)

Well, the number I posted is actually for the total world population. I plugged in the wrong number trying to do it too quickly.

It's actually 0.00000118425 deadly terror attacks per muslim per year. I apologize for any subsequent errors due to this mistake. ;)

G26S239
05-28-2012, 01:57
I agree. It's no more terrorism than what the other side is doing. Snowbird who keeps wanting this to be a Christian vs Muslim thing. I disagree. It's a war. In a war, people fight with whatever means they have available. Of course the other side is always unethical, no matter what side you're on.
So bombing an audience of people watching the World Cup is not terrorism? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14944664

Blowing up the London Underground and Spanish Train stations is not terrorism?

Murdering vacationing Aussies and others in Bali is not terrorism?

Stabbing stewardesses to get the piolts out of the cockpit and driving planes into commercial business buildings is not terrorism?

I agree that it is not muslime against christian since the muzzies like mass murdering Hindus in Mumbai as well. More like Muzzies against everyone who does not share their zeal for Allah.


Isn't that who we're fighting? Our motivation is the same (i.e. to win the war) and so far, our actions have been much more effective than theirs. We have killed more of them and destroyed more of their property than they have of ours. IMO, that's a good thing. If someone has to impose their will on someone else, I want to be us. Of course it would be best if everyone could just leave everyone else alone, but religious fanaticism and greed often get in the way of that.Yeah muzzies have been an annoyance since they started 1400 years ago.

void *
05-28-2012, 02:51
The point of the OP is, it is ridiculous for an employee to be 'recommended' to be reprogrammed because of an opinion. The war against free speech continues.

So if he had said something ill of Christians, and his employer had recommended sensitivity training, you'd be all about how it's part of a war against free speech, right?

Somehow, I doubt it.

snowbird
05-28-2012, 08:30
0.00000118425 deadly terror attacks per muslim per year

Thanks for the statistic.

It would be more meaningful however, if you also gave us the figure for other religions, so we can compare them. How many deadly terror attacks per Christian per year (of course, they'd be going AGAINST the teachings of their religion in such doings)? And how many deadly terror attacks per Atheist per year, making sure to include the Hitler, Stalin, and Mao years (they, like the Muslims, were doing the will of their 'Great Leaders')?



P.S. speaking of statistics, London, England has seen a rise in reported rapes (53%) in the last 4 years. Coincidently, or not, this corresponds with their glorious leftist 'celebration of diversity'. Norway, unlike the UK, kept track of the ethnicity of the perps, so we know it's the Muslim immigrants. Ironically, Western lefty feminists indirectly gave their blessings for this outrage:upeyes:.

One more tidbit for lefty dhimmis: I haven't had time to view it yet myself, but Pat Condell now has a video about the "Mecca Pride Parade"...no doubt it's a hilarious hoot!

void *
05-28-2012, 10:39
Thanks for the statistic.

It would be more meaningful however, if you also gave us the figure for other religions, so we can compare them.

The point is not to compare it against other religions. The point is to show how ridiculous your running total is as support for the idea that the vast majority of muslims are terrorists.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that the radical muslims aren't a problem. Just that you appear to want to treat all muslims as if they are radical. Which, IMHO, is an easy way to make your conjecture a self-fulfilling prophecy.

muscogee
05-28-2012, 10:44
So bombing an audience of people watching the World Cup is not terrorism? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14944664

Blowing up the London Underground and Spanish Train stations is not terrorism?

Murdering vacationing Aussies and others in Bali is not terrorism?

Stabbing stewardesses to get the piolts out of the cockpit and driving planes into commercial business buildings is not terrorism?

I agree that it is not muslime against christian since the muzzies like mass murdering Hindus in Mumbai as well. More like Muzzies against everyone who does not share their zeal for Allah.

Yeah muzzies have been an annoyance since they started 1400 years ago.

How is this different from blowing up a wedding party with a drone? How is it different from blowing up a house full of people in Pakistan? How would you feel if a group of al-Qaeda invaded the White House, shot the president, and dumped his body at sea? Would you consider that terrorism or an act of combat? Before some dumbass tries to pervert what I just wrote, I'm not condemning the killing of OBL. It was justified. It was beneficial to our cause. It was courageous. It was not an act of terror. It was an act of war. Had it happened to our President your kind would have been howling about a cowardly act of terrorism. Morally and philanthropically, there's no difference. People on both sides get killed in war. "War is Hell".

kirgi08
05-28-2012, 10:51
Participants.'08.

G26S239
05-28-2012, 17:33
How is this different from blowing up a wedding party with a drone? How is it different from blowing up a house full of people in Pakistan? How would you feel if a group of al-Qaeda invaded the White House, shot the president, and dumped his body at sea? Would you consider that terrorism or an act of combat? Before some dumbass tries to pervert what I just wrote, I'm not condemning the killing of OBL. It was justified. It was beneficial to our cause. It was courageous. It was not an act of terror. It was an act of war. Had it happened to our President your kind would have been howling about a cowardly act of terrorism. Morally and philanthropically, there's no difference. People on both sides get killed in war. "War is Hell".
The intent to target non combatants is a clear point of difference. Our military does not deliberately target non combatants and when it does happen the individual(s) responsible are prosecuted because that is not DOD policy.

Are you claiming that our military deliberately targets weddings or other such get togethers? Because al Qaeda, al Shabaab and their friends do deliberately target train stations, people watching soccer matches or Nigerians for choosing church over mosque services.

I find it amazing that you cannot discern a qualitative difference between our military bombing a wedding in error versus al Shabaab deliberately targeting a bunch of World Cup viewers or Jemaah Islaiyah deliberately targeting a bunch of people on vacation in Bali. How about Sudanese being murdered for being Christian or following traditional African religions? Is that also morally the same to you? Because these are all different fronts in the same war whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

Can you provide an example of al Qaeda, al Shabaab or Lashkar-e-Toiba condemning their own for deliberately murdering non combatants? How about the government of Sudan?

Where have I accused al Qaeda or their allies of being cowards? I have plenty of posts here. Find one where I have done that.

muscogee
05-29-2012, 08:08
The intent to target non combatants is a clear point of difference. Our military does not deliberately target non combatants and when it does happen the individual(s) responsible are prosecuted because that is not DOD policy.

That's because we have the luxury of doing that. They don't. We have the ability to take down entire countries. They don't. We have the ability to locate and selectively take out their leadership. I'm sure they would like to have that ability, but, they don't. All they can do is hit soft targets. It would be nice if they would admit defeat, but they haven't. Does that make them less moral than us? We have killed more of them than they have of us.

Was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act? It depends on which side you're on. How about the fire bombing of Japanese cities (http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html)? That was done to demoralize the Japanese which is the reason the people you cited are doing what they do. I don't like it, but bad things happen in a war. They always have. The difference is that you and many others have allowed yourselves to get whipped into a hot blooded frenzy instead of a cold blooded analysis of the war. We can be expected to do what we can do to end it on our terms. They can be expected to do what they can do to end it on their terms.

Where have I accused al Qaeda or their allies of being cowards? I have plenty of posts here. Find one where I have done that.

I did not specify you. I know the people on this board and their love of strawmen and non sequiturs.

snowbird
05-29-2012, 08:24
The point is not to compare it against other religions. The point is to show how ridiculous your running total is as support for the idea that the vast majority of muslims are terrorists.

In other words, you're too politically correct to compare Islam with Christianity, when such a comparison would show how peaceful Christianity is and how bloody warmongering Islam is.

Got it.

While dhimmis and Akil keep assuring us that Islam is peaceful, in Tunisia, a crowd chanted, "Every Muslim is a jihadist". In Skopje, Macedonia, another crowd of Muslims shouted "Allahu Akbar" and "Death to the Christians". But, but...didn't Akil just assure us that Islam is all about tolerance and respect for the People of the Book?

In Carcassone, France, this past Sunday, Muslims stoned Christians in church during Mass. In Nairobi, Kenya, an explosion ripped through a buiding full of small shops, injuring 33, including a woman who had seen a "bearded man" leave behind a bag shortly beforehand. Was he a Muslim? Common sense says yes, but political correctness says he was more likely an Amish Christian:upeyes:. Oh well, at least he was a moderate Muslim, because he left the bag behind. Devout Muslims would blow themselves up with the bag to get at those 72 virgins. And at least Muslims in Kenya are still moderate, like their countryman, Obama.

Today's total of deadly Muslim attacks, despite all those supposed peaceful Muslims out there, has reached 18,956. How can that be when they're all so peaceful?

Dhimmis are supporting the jihad, whether they know it or not. They are helping to build Pax Islamica, apparently impervious to the bloody reality of Islam's core tenets. Proud of that?

void *
05-29-2012, 09:42
In other words, you're too politically correct to compare Islam with Christianity, when such a comparison would show how peaceful Christianity is and how bloody warmongering Islam is.

Am I running around blaming all Christians for bombing abortion clinics? No. Have I claimed that the rate of violent acts for Christians is higher, or comparable to, Muslims? No.

All I am claiming is that your attitude towards *all* muslims is not actually justified. Against the radical muslims who are actually committing terrorist acts? Absolutely. Shall we treat 1.6 billion people as the enemy, and kick off a self fulfilling prophecy? I'll pass, thanks.

Woofie
05-29-2012, 10:09
That's because we have the luxury of doing that. They don't. We have the ability to take down entire countries. They don't. We have the ability to locate and selectively take out their leadership. I'm sure they would like to have that ability, but, they don't. All they can do is hit soft targets. It would be nice if they would admit defeat, but they haven't. Does that make them less moral than us? We have killed more of them than they have of us.

Was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act? It depends on which side you're on. How about the fire bombing of Japanese cities (http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html)? That was done to demoralize the Japanese which is the reason the people you cited are doing what they do. I don't like it, but bad things happen in a war. They always have. The difference is that you and many others have allowed yourselves to get whipped into a hot blooded frenzy instead of a cold blooded analysis of the war. We can be expected to do what we can do to end it on our terms. They can be expected to do what they can do to end it on their terms.



I did not specify you. I know the people on this board and their love of strawmen and non sequiturs.

All is fair in war.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 10:14
All is fair in war.

All is not fair in war, but cheating works.

The only thing worse than being involved in a war, is losing one.

kirgi08
05-29-2012, 10:27
Am I running around blaming all Christians for bombing abortion clinics? No. Have I claimed that the rate of violent acts for Christians is higher, or comparable to, Muslims? No.

All I am claiming is that your attitude towards *all* muslims is not actually justified. Against the radical muslims who are actually committing terrorist acts? Absolutely. Shall we treat 1.6 billion people as the enemy, and kick off a self fulfilling prophecy? I'll pass, thanks.

Then why are the non "radical" muslims not dropping a .10 on those that are? If your ignoring the terror,your condoning it.If you want the random acts of war ta stop,get a rope and find a tree.The peaceful muslims are turning a blind eye ta them there that ain't.Outta fear or pittance the body count still rises.Snowbird is right,no matter how much AM complains.#s Don't lie.


I don't care what "God" a person worships............. However when that "god" demands what the "god" of Islam does.

How many folk around here have heard shots fired in anger ?. I was a piss ant E6 and heard plenty.Them there folk justifying "sharia" are just deluding reality.

Sharia is a religious system that can morph inta a political system as a need arises..'08.

void *
05-29-2012, 10:52
[B]Then why are the non "radical" muslims not dropping a .10 on those that are?

Are you claiming to know that no muslim has ever helped find a terrorist?

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 11:03
Are you claiming to know that no muslim has ever helped find a terrorist?

There are a few Muslims that have helped us get info on violent jihadists. But I'm not seeing the public outrage they display for other islamic issues.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/mikelanenooutrage.gif

void *
05-29-2012, 11:26
There are a few Muslims that have helped us get info on violent jihadists. But I'm not seeing the public outrage they display for other islamic issues.

Sure. I've noticed, however, that people who complain that muslims don't denounce terrorism are generally not bothering to look, because a google search finds plenty of examples.

Failing that, the statement that those muslims that do denounce terrorism are lying is made. Which may be true in some cases.

But to get back to the point, 1.6 BILLION muslims. I agree that among those 1.6 BILLION muslims, there are people who hold views that are very dangerous, and lead them to justify terrorist attacks. Those people are, in fact, our enemies. However, if those people were anywhere near as prevalent as people like snowbird would have you believe, we'd all be dead already.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 11:38
Sure. I've noticed, however, that people who complain that muslims don't denounce terrorism are generally not bothering to look, because a google search finds plenty of examples.

Failing that, the statement that those muslims that do denounce terrorism are lying is made. Which may be true in some cases.

But to get back to the point, 1.6 BILLION muslims. I agree that among those 1.6 BILLION muslims, there are people who hold views that are very dangerous, and lead them to justify terrorist attacks. Those people are, in fact, our enemies. However, if those people were anywhere near as prevalent as people like snowbird would have you believe, we'd all be dead already.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing

I don't have to read about them, I've met them. Both sides. I know they exist. There are enough muslims that are willing to support violent jihad to warrant some special attention. The fact that there does not seem to be a cultural will to purge the violent jihadists is real and should be considered.

Not all muslims are violent jihadists, but a lot of violent jihadists tend to be muslim.

So, keep an eye on them. Try not to inconvenience the good ones, kill or capture the bad ones. The good ones should keep their distance from the bad ones. I'd recommend double the blast radius for the most common weapons being used at that time.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/GWOT.gif

kirgi08
05-29-2012, 11:49
Are you claiming to know that no muslim has ever helped find a terrorist?

Yep.If'n youse got proof.I'll read it.The frikkin point being is the #s don't agree with your platitudes.They are more scared of their own families than their own mind.'08.

void *
05-29-2012, 12:30
So, keep an eye on them. Try not to inconvenience the good ones, kill or capture the bad ones. The good ones should keep their distance from the bad ones.

I agree with that. Read what snowbird writes. His approach, imho, has more potential to harm than help.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 12:51
I agree with that. Read what snowbird writes. His approach, imho, has more potential to harm than help.

And you've done an excellent job pointing that out.

And so have I.

Kingarthurhk
05-29-2012, 16:46
OMG is a common expression used by everybody in America at some time or another. Don't read so much into it.

In the interest of the dogmatic zealots here: Astaghfirullah.

Interesting. That is something, speaking for myself, which is strickly forbiden.

G26S239
05-29-2012, 17:34
That's because we have the luxury of doing that. They don't. We have the ability to take down entire countries. They don't. We have the ability to locate and selectively take out their leadership. I'm sure they would like to have that ability, but, they don't. All they can do is hit soft targets.
Do you believe that the US military has a policy of deliberately targeting non combatants engaged in activities such as weddings, kite flying contests, underwater basket weaving contests or activity outside the realm of military support for the Taliban or their allies?

Please take note that this question is not about whether Colonel Chivington deliberately used a drone to attack Black Kettle's people.

The question is not about whether or not Doolittle deliberately used a drone to bomb Tokyo circa 1944-45.

The question is not about whether Ernst Stavro Blofeld deliberately used a drone to try and kill James Bond.

Does that make them less moral than us? Of course not they have great values. :upeyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_RaXdvlTY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J_cqtdH26c&feature=related

Was the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act? It depends on which side you're on.
Good point throwing tea in a harbor = blowing up soccer fans in Kampala.

How about the fire bombing of Japanese cities (http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html)? That was done to demoralize the Japanese which is the reason the people you cited are doing what they do. I don't like it, but bad things happen in a war.
Yeah that happened. You want to throw in the crucifixion as well since we are in Religious Issues? How many of our people currently stationed in Afghanistan or Iraq flew with Doolittle anyway?

The difference is that you and many others have allowed yourselves to get whipped into a hot blooded frenzy instead of a cold blooded analysis of the war. We can be expected to do what we can do to end it on our terms. They can be expected to do what they can do to end it on their terms.So disagreeing with your moral equivalence stance constitutes being in a frenzy?



I did not specify you. I know the people on this board and their love of strawmen and non sequiturs.
"Your kind" is an inclusive term.

G26S239
05-29-2012, 18:58
That's because we have the luxury of doing that. They don't. We have the ability to take down entire countries. They don't. We have the ability to locate and selectively take out their leadership. I'm sure they would like to have that ability, but, they don't. All they can do is hit soft targets. It would be nice if they would admit defeat, but they haven't. Does that make them less moral than us?
Damn! The lack of drones, stealth aircraft and other hi tech has forced the enlightened opposition to attack school girls with toxic substances. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/05/201252451931671453.html Of course this does not make them any less moral than us. Those little b<&^%es should not be in school anyway.

snowbird
05-30-2012, 06:54
I agree with that. Read what snowbird writes. His approach, imho, has more potential to harm than help.

If I read you right, you're agreeing that we're in a war right now. And, if one thinks about it, it must be admitted that this war is being forced on us against our will. It is their jihad aggression-war. Our only choice is, as the Koran puts it, is to surrender (either convert or 'pay the jizya tax' -accept 3rd-class citizenship in our own country) or fight to the death.

As Cavalry Doc says, the only thing worse than being in a war is losing one. So we have to consider what leads towards victory and what leads toward defeat -do the one, and avoid the other.

You criticize my "approach". My approach would include stopping any further Muslim immigration immediately. We haven't had a civil war for about 150 years now, but Islam has a 14 century track record of jihad warfare everywhere it goes. Bringing more of them here guarantees bloody warfare for us and our children, grandchildren, etc here in our homeland.

Please tell us your superior approach to winning this war. Thanks in advance.

fowl intent
05-30-2012, 07:42
The discussion seems to have strayed from the OP's topic. I see no problem with the way this situation was handled, since the inspector was exercising his right to free speech when he made the statement, and his employer was exercising it's right to put conditions/restrictions on it's employees in an employment at-will state.

void *
05-30-2012, 09:24
You criticize my "approach". My approach would include stopping any further Muslim immigration immediately. We haven't had a civil war for about 150 years now, but Islam has a 14 century track record of jihad warfare everywhere it goes. Bringing more of them here guarantees bloody warfare for us and our children, grandchildren, etc here in our homeland.

Please tell us your superior approach to winning this war. Thanks in advance.

I don't claim to be a military expert, but treating all muslims as the enemy because a very small portion of them are the enemy will guarantee bloody warfare for us, and our children, and our grandchildren. Your approach is, imho, significantly worse than what we're actually doing. There's no reason to treat cab drivers in Nashville as terrorists unless we find links to terrorism. So we should do what we do: find those links, if they exist. If they don't, there's no reason those cab drivers should be treated as though they blow stuff up. Have a nice day.

Glock30Eric
05-30-2012, 09:35
Please read the link, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-teaching-that-parents-should-spank-their-children

What's next? All Christians going to jail because they share the gospel to one other?

Akil8290
05-30-2012, 09:52
Interesting. That is something, speaking for myself, which is strickly forbiden.

I'm sure you've done it; if not that, then some other sin. We're all sinners; get over it.

How's living in the glass house working for ya?

Kingarthurhk
05-30-2012, 11:30
I'm sure you've done it; if not that, then some other sin. We're all sinners; get over it.

How's living in the glass house working for ya?

The point is, I know it's wrong, so I will do my best not to do it. Especially, in print when I am trying to represent my position.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 19:22
I don't claim to be a military expert, but treating all muslims as the enemy because a very small portion of them are the enemy will guarantee bloody warfare for us, and our children, and our grandchildren. Your approach is, imho, significantly worse than what we're actually doing. There's no reason to treat cab drivers in Nashville as terrorists unless we find links to terrorism. So we should do what we do: find those links, if they exist. If they don't, there's no reason those cab drivers should be treated as though they blow stuff up. Have a nice day.

Right now, you are correct. But uncork a nuke in Los Angeles, St. Loius and DC on the same day, and stuff is going to get real ugly real quick. I won't like it either, but I think you would witness mass expulsions from the US of muslims. We (as a country) have done worse for less reason.

I'd blame the jihadists in that scenario. I hope the peaceful muslims will realize that fact, and help us root them out now.

What will be will be.

muscogee
05-30-2012, 19:23
Please read the link, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/pastor-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-teaching-that-parents-should-spank-their-children

What's next? All Christians going to jail because they share the gospel to one other?

Reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

muscogee
05-30-2012, 19:29
Damn! The lack of drones, stealth aircraft and other hi tech has forced the enlightened opposition to attack school girls with toxic substances. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/05/201252451931671453.html Of course this does not make them any less moral than us. Those little b<&^%es should not be in school anyway.

Therefore what?

Akil8290
05-30-2012, 19:45
The point is, I know it's wrong, so I will do my best not to do it. Especially, in print when I am trying to represent my position.

Granted. My point being I hate the holier-than-thou attitude.

juggy4711
05-30-2012, 21:33
Right now, you are correct. But uncork a nuke in Los Angeles, St. Loius and DC on the same day, and stuff is going to get real ugly real quick. I won't like it either, but I think you would witness mass expulsions from the US of muslims. We (as a country) have done worse for less reason.

I'd blame the jihadists in that scenario. I hope the peaceful muslims will realize that fact, and help us root them out now.

What will be will be.

I agree. As repulsive as I find it, I believe that when faced with an enemy that will not concede defeat the only way to win is to make sure there are no enemies, current or potential left.

The West is never going to that. It will be up to Muslims to fight and kill other Muslims for there to ever be a world wide practice of Islam that does not threaten other nations.

One can argue all they want about the percentages of Muslims that pose a threat to others but in comparison to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc...there is no comparison. Islam remains a threat to the world in a way that no other major religion does and it will be up to Muslims to solve that issue because when foreigners get involved history trends that Muslims unite or capitulate from fear against the foreign power no matter how much they disagree with the radicals they often claim are not true Scots er uh Muslims.

After 9/11 I was young enough and naive enough to believe that we could drag the Islamic world into the 21st century kicking and screaming if we had to. Painfully I realized we could do no such thing. That religious genocide on our part would be required to rid us of the Islamic threat to the world.

At this point I just hope we have not been castrated to the point that we submit before Muslims find the guts to reform themselves to the level the other major religions have.

void *
05-30-2012, 23:28
Right now, you are correct. But uncork a nuke in Los Angeles, St. Loius and DC on the same day, and stuff is going to get real ugly real quick. I won't like it either, but I think you would witness mass expulsions from the US of muslims. We (as a country) have done worse for less reason.

I'd blame the jihadists in that scenario. I hope the peaceful muslims will realize that fact, and help us root them out now.

I think many wouldn't actually live to get expelled, were that to happen. The point stands, though - if all 1.6 billion were already against us, or even a large proportion of that 1.6 billion, we'd already be past a point of no return. Do we shoot for missing that point, or do we fold and go directly for it? I, like you, am hoping we miss it.

snowbird
05-31-2012, 07:12
...I ... am hoping ....

Well, thanks for giving us your strategy. Just keep on letting gazillions of them immigrate here, with their vastly higher birthrate than what we have, and HOPE they don't believe what their holy book says. HOPE that we can somehow tell which ones are peaceful versus which ones aren't. HOPE that we can always stop the shaheeds BEFORE they detonate amongst our children. Sounds like Obama's 'Hope and Change'. We rely on hope alone and we'll get radical totalitarian change.

You have a good day too.

Woofie
05-31-2012, 10:23
Well, thanks for giving us your strategy. Just keep on letting gazillions of them immigrate here, with their vastly higher birthrate than what we have, and HOPE they don't believe what their holy book says. HOPE that we can somehow tell which ones are peaceful versus which ones aren't. HOPE that we can always stop the shaheeds BEFORE they detonate amongst our children. Sounds like Obama's 'Hope and Change'. We rely on hope alone and we'll get radical totalitarian change.

You have a good day too.

Is "gazillions" the actual number of radical muslims immigrating here?

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 10:34
I think many wouldn't actually live to get expelled, were that to happen. The point stands, though - if all 1.6 billion were already against us, or even a large proportion of that 1.6 billion, we'd already be past a point of no return. Do we shoot for missing that point, or do we fold and go directly for it? I, like you, am hoping we miss it.

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

They are still outnumbered and militarily inadequate to do so.


I don't for a second believe it's all of them either. But there are enough of them to warrant some special attention. To fail to be suspicious would require us to forcibly forget all of the attacks carried out by Muslims that were previously considered friends and/or peaceful Muslims.

Sucks, but when you lay with dogs, it's not unreasonable to be suspected of having fleas.

void *
05-31-2012, 13:25
They are still outnumbered and militarily inadequate to do so.

Do you think we would have seen more, less, or the same number of attacks compared to what we've actually seen, if a large majority of that 1.6 billion were actively supporting and planning terrorist attacks?

I don't for a second believe it's all of them either

Right. My point was, do we go for making all of them the enemy immediately, or do we do what we can to *not* make all of them the enemy immediately? Let's say Glenn Beck's estimate of 10% is accurate, just for the sake of argument. That gives about 160 million Islamic terrorists worldwide. That's about half our population, give or take. What would happen if we, right now, took snowbird's tack, and treated the 100% (all 1.6 billion) as though they're the enemy? How would the world be different? Could we expect more of them to become the enemy? I certainly think so.

I somewhat get the impression you're fundamentally agreeing with me, but are posting as though you have to contest what I say.

Paul7
05-31-2012, 13:54
Do you think we would have seen more, less, or the same number of attacks compared to what we've actually seen, if a large majority of that 1.6 billion were actively supporting and planning terrorist attacks?



Right. My point was, do we go for making all of them the enemy immediately, or do we do what we can to *not* make all of them the enemy immediately? Let's say Glenn Beck's estimate of 10% is accurate, just for the sake of argument. That gives about 160 million Islamic terrorists worldwide. That's about half our population, give or take. What would happen if we, right now, took snowbird's tack, and treated the 100% (all 1.6 billion) as though they're the enemy? How would the world be different? Could we expect more of them to become the enemy? I certainly think so.

I somewhat get the impression you're fundamentally agreeing with me, but are posting as though you have to contest what I say.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but it isn't sticking our heads in the sand and pretending all religions and cultures are the same.

Weakness is provocative to the Jihadists.

void *
05-31-2012, 18:32
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it isn't sticking our heads in the sand and pretending all religions and cultures are the same.

And who, precisely, is doing that, Paul? Who here on this board has ever said there's no threat from radical islam?

Kingarthurhk
05-31-2012, 18:35
Granted. My point being I hate the holier-than-thou attitude.

Ironic.

Akil8290
05-31-2012, 18:52
Ironic.

How???

Kingarthurhk
05-31-2012, 19:49
How???

I am assumming that you, like most religions, believe you have the answer, and everyone else is wrong. It is an honest position; however, do you feel that your religion is more holy than all other others? That makes your statement, "ironic".

Paul7
05-31-2012, 20:00
And who, precisely, is doing that, Paul? Who here on this board has ever said there's no threat from radical islam?

Did I claim that was said? IMHO some here do seem to have the belief that all religions and cultures are the same (what I DID say, not what you imagined I said), hence when the daily Muslim atrocity is pointed out, we get in response something Christians did centuries ago in a twisted attempt at moral equivalency.

void *
05-31-2012, 20:42
Did I claim that was said?

Did you talk about sticking heads in sand, or not? Oh, that's right - you did. So, again, whose claiming that there's not danger from radical muslims?

creaky
05-31-2012, 21:01
Did you talk about sticking heads in sand, or not? Oh, that's right - you did.

More like standing on the top rail of the fence in your little ballerina slippers. Why don't you be a man for once and admit the obvious?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

void *
05-31-2012, 21:04
More like standing on the top rail of the fence in your little ballerina slippers. Why don't you be a man for once and admit the obvious?

What, that radical Islamists are killing people, and guys like you and Paul and snowbird want to pretend that not agreeing with you in all particulars is sticking your head in the sand? Why would I have any issue at all with admitting that?

ETA: I'll ask you, too, creaky - when have I ever posted that radical islam wasn't a danger?

creaky
05-31-2012, 21:50
What, that radical Islamists are killing people, and guys like you and Paul and snowbird want to pretend that not agreeing with you in all particulars is sticking your head in the sand? Why would I have any issue at all with admitting that?

ETA: I'll ask you, too, creaky - when have I ever posted that radical islam wasn't a danger?

"radical Islamists" Hmmmm. I look at that as your way of soft pedaling the issue.

When you do that silly math and come up with the infinitesimal percentage you and AM like to trot out to show that islam is hardly responsible at all, what are we supposed to think?

You know that statistics can show anything you want them to show. You are using that calculation disingenuously. What you should be doing, and the more honest way of looking at the problem, are violent incidents per religion with the advancement of the religion as the underlying reason.

Like snowbird does. Like Paul7 does. There is no comparison and I think you know it.

void *
05-31-2012, 22:03
When you do that silly math and come up with the infinitesimal percentage you and AM like to trot out to show that islam is hardly responsible at all, what are we supposed to think?

It's not silly math. It's actual math. It's also not a percentage. It's the rate of terrorist attacks, per muslim, per year, using snowbird's running number of attacks. If it's infinitesimal, that ought to tell you something.

All I've *ever* said is that if 1.6 billion muslims, or a significant portion of them, were after us, we'd see a whole lot more violence than we actually do. Possibly with some statements about how we ought to treat the terrorists like terrorists, and not people that we can't show are terrorists. Which is quite a bit different than a claim that 'Islam is hardly responsible at all' (and if you don't get it yet, I think Islam's tendency to generate radical, kill 'em all minorities makes it likely the most dangerous religion on the planet right now, but that *still* does not justify treating 1.6 billion as though they were all radicals) - but I'm not surprised, as this is hardly the first time you've tried to claim I've said something I haven't. Unless you'd like to find a post where I said otherwise? (I'm keeping a running tab in my head - and to date, when I've asked you to find a post for one of your wild claims that I said something, you have not provided one *once*).

Animal Mother
05-31-2012, 22:11
When you do that silly math and come up with the infinitesimal percentage you and AM like to trot out to show that islam is hardly responsible at all, what are we supposed to think? You're supposed to think, "Maybe we should blame the people committing the violence rather than the religion they use to justify their actions". You know, like you do with Christianity.
You know that statistics can show anything you want them to show. You are using that calculation disingenuously. What you should be doing, and the more honest way of looking at the problem, are violent incidents per religion with the advancement of the religion as the underlying reason. How is that a more honest way to look at it? How is a Muslim doctor in the US or shopkeeper in Britain responsible for the actions of others who claim the same faith or ethnic background?

creaky
05-31-2012, 22:25
It's not silly math. It's actual math. It's also not a percentage. It's the rate of terrorist attacks, per muslim, per year, using snowbird's running number of attacks. If it's infinitesimal, that ought to tell you something.

Ok, rate. The only thing it tells me is that you guys are still being dishonest about the issue.

(and if you don't get it yet, I think Islam's tendency to generate radical, kill 'em all minorities makes it likely the most dangerous religion on the planet right now,

Well shiver me timbers, a light up ahead. A dim one, but a light nevertheless...

but I'm not surprised, as this is hardly the first time you've tried to claim I've said something I haven't. Unless you'd like to find a post where I said otherwise? (I'm keeping a running tab in my head - and to date, when I've asked you to find a post for one of your wild claims that I said something, you have not provided one *once*).

Are you not fond of your calculation showing the rate of attacks per muslim? That's all I'm on your a** for at this time. Like I said, it's a dishonest way of looking at the problem.

void *
05-31-2012, 22:31
Are you not fond of your calculation showing the rate of attacks per muslim? That's all I'm on your a** for at this time. Like I said, it's a dishonest way of looking at the problem.

It's a dishonest way of looking at things, eh?

If I said the rate of traffic fatalities in the U.S. is currently roughly 0.0001 per person per year, is that dishonest, too? When the American Heart Association provides death rates, they're being a bunch of lying bastards, right?

creaky
05-31-2012, 22:34
You're supposed to think, "Maybe we should blame the people committing the violence rather than the religion they use to justify their actions". You know, like you do with Christianity.

Yeah, one kid getting his titties twisted with a pair of pliers is pretty much the same as the daily carnage courtesy of islam.
Got it.:upeyes:


How is that a more honest way to look at it? How is a Muslim doctor in the US or shopkeeper in Britain responsible for the actions of others who claim the same faith or ethnic background?
I know you're not that thick. Think about it.

Animal Mother
05-31-2012, 23:25
Yeah, one kid getting his titties twisted with a pair of pliers is pretty much the same as the daily carnage courtesy of islam.
Got it.:upeyes: No, you don't, and that's what's so disappointing.
I know you're not that thick. Think about it.No answer then? I wish you would take your own advice.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 06:39
Did you talk about sticking heads in sand, or not? Oh, that's right - you did. So, again, whose claiming that there's not danger from radical muslims?

Sticking your head in the sand = believing all religions/cultures are the same. Want to stop making stuff up now? I never said people here believe there is no danger from radical Islam. The dishonest part is when Christianity is said to be some kind of equal potential threat.

snowbird
06-01-2012, 08:31
You're supposed to think, "Maybe we should blame the people committing the violence rather than the religion they use to justify their actions". You know, like you do with Christianity.
How is that a more honest way to look at it? How is a Muslim doctor in the US or shopkeeper in Britain responsible for the actions of others who claim the same faith or ethnic background?

If your thesis is true (that Islam is innocent of justifying unjust violence), then how come any who choose to leave Islam have to have a death sentence hanging over their head for the rest of their life, even here in the USA? Is it just some wicked individual who is the source of their misery, as you suggest, or is it the whole evil ideology of Islam which motivates so many individuals to do evil?

We all, including you, know the answer, but perhaps you're just not honest enough to admit it? Mohammed said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him". Can any who argue the Christianity-equals-Islam nonsense show us a quote where Jesus said anything even remotely similar? If an individual Christian does something bad, most other Christians will call him on it, with the backing of scripture. Your 'Muslim doctor in the US or shopkeeper in Britain', OTOH, will almost always just keep quiet, or even speak out in favor, when fatwas get pronounced against apostates or 'blasphemers' (remember Salmon Rushdie? And Molly Norris is still in hiding).

US Muslim 'civil rights' organizations often whine against 'Islamophobia', but never say anything in favor of the human rights of apostates from Islam (or 'blasphemers' -this shows how Islam is anti-free-speech, and those who apologize for it must also be against free speech). Do you favor free speech or Islam?

Paul7
06-01-2012, 08:44
What gets me is the hypocritical MSM, who were up in arms when apartheid in South Africa was discriminating against a class of people. Here we have worldwide discrimination against 'infidels' going on in Muslim nations and you barely hear a peep about if from the 'human rights' crowd.

I'll say it again, Sharia Law is gender apartheid. It's been estimated there is an honor killing in the Muslim world every 30 minutes.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 08:46
You're supposed to think, "Maybe we should blame the people committing the violence rather than the religion they use to justify their actions".

What you continue to ignore is that Jesus Christ harmed nobody, and said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc, while Muhammed made the cover of Military History Quarterly.

void *
06-01-2012, 08:53
Sticking your head in the sand = believing all religions/cultures are the same. Want to stop making stuff up now?

"Sticking your head in the sand" is an idiom that means intentional ignorance of a problem. If that's not what you mean, then don't use the idiom. Or, alternatively, don't accuse people of making stuff up when you've used it to mean something other than what it commonly means, and they interpret it as meaning what it commonly means.

I never said people here believe there is no danger from radical Islam. The dishonest part is when Christianity is said to be some kind of equal potential threat.

Please provide a post where I've ever claimed that Christianity is an equal potential threat. (It isn't, and won't be, imho, as long as we have mostly secular governments).

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 08:56
What you continue to ignore is that Jesus Christ harmed nobody, and said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc, while Muhammed made the cover of Military History Quarterly. Didn't you recently say that Jesus inspired both the OT and NT? Lots of folks died in the OT.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:01
Didn't you recently say that Jesus inspired both the OT and NT? Lots of folks died in the OT.

He didn't tell anyone in the NT to kill nonbelievers, which is probably why Christians aren't doing it today.

You continue to not give OT Israel the same right to defend herself as we exercise.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:03
He didn't tell anyone in the NT to kill nonbelievers, which is probably why Christians aren't doing it today. True, that was strictly in the OT.
You continue to not give OT Israel the same right to defend herself as we exercise. Right to defend herself? Yes. Right to commit genocide? No. I don't think the US has the right to commit genocide either. Do you?

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:03
"Sticking your head in the sand" is an idiom that means intentional ignorance of a problem. If that's not what you mean, then don't use the idiom.

I'll use whatever phrase I think appropriate, thank you.

Or, alternatively, don't accuse people of making stuff up when you've used it to mean something other than what it commonly means, and they interpret it as meaning what it commonly means.

Spin all you want, but I stand by my statement, you made up an allegation that I said people on this form said radical Islam is not a threat.

Please provide a post where I've ever claimed that Christianity is an equal potential threat.

I didn't say it was you, that is more AM.

(It isn't, and won't be, imho, as long as we have mostly secular governments).

How did that work out in the secular USSR?

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:05
Right to defend herself? Yes. Right to commit genocide? No. I don't think the US has the right to commit genocide either. Do you?

First show me what OT people was exterminated. Several times it said to kill those that remain in the land.

As long as you don't understand the offense of sin, the OT passages will make no sense to you. But I stand by my point that those instances were little different from what we did in WWII, other than our body count of the innocent was much higher.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:06
True, that was strictly in the OT.


So you agree Christianity does not teach the killing of unbelievers? When Jesus confronted unbelievers such as you, He just sadly walked away.

snowbird
06-01-2012, 09:07
Weakness is provocative to the Jihadists.

Good point, Paul. Dhimmis say we need to suck up to Islam ("...do what we can to *not* make...them the enemy...") so maybe they won't hurt us, very definitely a position of weakness, especially post-9/11. Imagine some American saying, post Pearl Harbor, we need to do what we can to not make all Japanese the enemy:upeyes:

P.S. I notice AM never answered the question about whether he supports free speech or Islam...but I think we know the answer.

void *
06-01-2012, 09:13
Spin all you want, but I stand by my statement, you made up an allegation that I said people on this form said radical Islam is not a threat.

No, I interpreted the phrase "stick your head in the sand" to mean what it means - intentional ignorance of a problem. Since the problem under discussion was radical islamic violence, as far as I can tell, if there's anyone spinning, it's you - at the very least you are trying to use a misunderstanding caused by your apparently incorrect use of an idiom to make an accusation of dishonesty.

You could just say 'Oh, I could see how someone would get that', rather than 'you're making stuff up', now, couldn't you? If you had, then I'd be fine with that. Instead, you're now accusing me of 'making stuff up'.

I didn't say it was you, that is more AM.

Please provide a post where AM has said that Christianity and Islam is currently an equal potential threat.

snowbird
06-01-2012, 09:16
More like standing on the top rail of the fence in your little ballerina slippers. Why don't you be a man for once and admit the obvious?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

:cheers:

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:29
First show me what OT people was exterminated. Several times it said to kill those that remain in the land. The people of Heshbon: At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. (Deut. 2:34)

The inhabitants of Bashan: So the Lord our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. (Duet. 3:3-6)

The Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites (though to be fair, this may be the same as the people of Heshbon), Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites: You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you. (Deut. 7:16)

That's just from a few chapters of Deuteronomy, do I need to go on?
As long as you don't understand the offense of sin, the OT passages will make no sense to you. Always a favorite tactic. How much interpretation of "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. (Deut. 13:16) is needed?
But I stand by my point that those instances were little different from what we did in WWII, other than our body count of the innocent was much higher. And I'll concede the point as soon as you find an order from Truman or Roosevelt ordering the complete annihilation of the Japanese or Germans, even after hostilities end.

Tilley
06-01-2012, 09:31
What you continue to ignore is that Jesus Christ harmed nobody, and said to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, etc, while Muhammed made the cover of Military History Quarterly.

You are awesome! This has got to be "The RI quote of the day."

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:32
The people of Heshbon: At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. (Deut. 2:34)

The inhabitants of Bashan: So the Lord our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. (Duet. 3:3-6)

The Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites (though to be fair, this may be the same as the people of Heshbon), Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites: You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you. (Deut. 7:16)

That's just from a few chapters of Deuteronomy, do I need to go on?
Always a favorite tactic. How much interpretation of "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. (Deut. 13:16) are there?
And I'll concede the point as soon as you find an order from Truman or Roosevelt ordering the complete annihilation of the Japanese or Germans, even after hostilities end.

We certainly annihilated the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, after the war was for all practical purposes over. Again, unless you agree on God's sovereignty, sin and punishment, etc, we have nothing to discuss. If God wanted to give occupied land to Israel, that is His business. I'm sure if you got over this 'objection' you'd find another excuse not to believe in God.

:yawn:

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:32
So you agree Christianity does not teach the killing of unbelievers? I agree that Jesus didn't in the NT. Christianity has taught it pretty much from the beginning.
When Jesus confronted unbelievers such as you, He just sadly walked away.Except in Deuteronomy 13:6-10, "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:35
We certainly annihilated the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, No, we didn't.
after the war was for all practical purposes over. No, it wasn't.
Again, unless you agree on God's sovereignty, sin and punishment, etc, we have nothing to discuss. And again, insisting that people have to agree with you before you're willing to discuss anything is the height of absurdity.
If God wanted to give occupied land to Israel, that is His business. I'm sure if you got over this 'objection' you'd find another excuse not to believe in God. I know you're desperate to rationalize the genocides of the OT, but if this is your methodology how can you possibly condemn killings committed in the names of other gods by their believers?

BTW, don't think I overlooked the fact you first claimed there were no genocides, then when they were pointed out now claim it's ok because God can do what He wants anyway.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:36
I agree that Jesus didn't in the NT. Christianity has taught it pretty much from the beginning.

Nonsense. Why aren't Christians following this imaginary teaching today?

Except in Deuteronomy 13:6-10, "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

And that has what to do with Christianity? Nice try.

An interesting fact of these commands is that is that in the command to kill rebellious children for example, there are no recorded instances of that being carried out. Which makes it a bit of a non-issue.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:42
I know you're desperate to rationalize the genocides of the OT,

Actually I never think of them other than having these bizarre discussions with you.

but if this is your methodology how can you possibly condemn killings committed in the names of other gods by their believers?

Not so fast, where did the OT say to randomly kill people simply because they were not believers in the Jewish God? On the contrary, the OT says to be kind to these people, and share God's truth with them. This is one reason Jesus was so angry with the moneychangers at the temple, they had set up shop in the Court of the Gentiles, intended to minister to gentiles.

BTW, don't think I overlooked the fact you first claimed there were no genocides, then when they were pointed out now claim it's ok because God can do what He wants anyway.

Call it what you will, I've said before God had a right to do what He did in the Flood. You might want to take a lesson from that.

For pete's sake, I don't think someone like you who can't even agree that the killing of 40,000,000 unborn children since 1973 is a bad thing has much moral authority.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:45
Nonsense. Why aren't Christians following this imaginary teaching today? Because the religion has evolved.
And that has what to do with Christianity? Nice try. To quote one of our resident theologians: Jesus Christ incarnate as man, yes. Jesus Christ the third person of the trinity has always existed, and will always exist.
An interesting fact of these commands is that is that in the command to kill rebellious children for example, there are no recorded instances of that being carried out. Which makes it a bit of a non-issue.What happened to the children who taunted Elisha?

To use a favorite tactic of yours, what evidence would we expect to find of children being executed for disobedience 3000 years ago?

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:50
Actually I never think of them other than having these bizarre discussions with you. Genocide doesn't bother you, even when committed by the supposed moral center of your existence. Noted.
Not so fast, where did the OT say to randomly kill people simply because they were not believers in the Jewish God? Where did I claim it said that?
On the contrary, the OT says to be kind to these people, and share God's truth with them. This is one reason Jesus was so angry with the moneychangers at the temple, they had set up shop in the Court of the Gentiles, intended to minister to gentiles. How is that relevant to the question you were asked and completely ignored? Keep dancing.
Call it what you will, I've said before God had a right to do what He did in the Flood. You might want to take a lesson from that. What lesson? To live in fear based on a mythological event?
For pete's sake, I don't think someone like you who can't even agree that the killing of 40,000,000 unborn children since 1973 is a bad thing has much moral authority. Hopefully you'll understand that as someone who justifies the slaughter of born children and other innocents you don't care any moral authority at all.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 10:04
Because the religion has evolved.

Yes, it's called the New Covenant. So what were the violent, Muhammed-like commands of Jesus that we needed to evolve from?

:popcorn:

To quote one of our resident theologians: Jesus Christ incarnate as man, yes. Jesus Christ the third person of the trinity has always existed, and will always exist.

Yes, and what He told the nation of Israel and later Christians are two different things. Context is everything.

What happened to the children who taunted Elisha?

Another distortion from the usual suspect. You might want to consult a version other than the King James.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/elishah1.htm

"Some translations give the impression of little children, but happily, the NIV which I am quoting here, correctly refers to these youngsters as 'youths.' The Hebrew 'neurim qetannim' is much better rendered as 'youths' or 'young men.' From several Old Testament examples, we know that these were probably boys aged from early 'teens' to up to as much as thirty years old! The KJV is at fault here in using the expression 'little children,' but the New King James and the NIV both, more correctly, use the word 'youths.' The Moffatt Bible uses the word 'boys' which seems fair and the Amplified Bible wisely points out that these were '(maturing and accountable) boys.' As confirmation of that, a similar Hebrew expression is used to describe Joseph at the age of seventeen in Genesis 37:2!"

Being the honorable person you are, I'll be looking forward to your retraction.

To use a favorite tactic of yours, what evidence would we expect to find of children being executed for disobedience 3000 years ago?

My usual source, the Bible. It spoke of other killings, but none involving disobedient children.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 17:06
Yes, it's called the New Covenant. So what were the violent, Muhammed-like commands of Jesus that we needed to evolve from? Dueteronomy 13:6-10, but if you want it straight from the man there's Matthew 10.
Yes, and what He told the nation of Israel and later Christians are two different things. Context is everything. The story changes over time, got it. What context is it that justifies murdering someone for changing their faith?
Another distortion from the usual suspect. You might want to consult a version other than the King James. Because killing "youths" is more acceptable?
Being the honorable person you are, I'll be looking forward to your retraction. You concede youths were killed for being disrespectful, but want to quibble about their possible ages, rather than the morality of having a bear slaughter them? Perhaps your priorities are tad skewed.

As for being honorable, weren't you the one who claimed there were no examples of peoples being annihilated in the Bible? When examples were provided, did you retract your claim or did you simply launch another, different rationalization?
My usual source, the Bible. It spoke of other killings, but none involving disobedient children.Are all events of the ancient world recorded in the Bible? But, if you want to argue that Biblical laws were routinely unenforced and therefore a non-issue, I'll be happy to accept that. Kind of demolishes your argument against homosexuality though, doesn't it?

Paul7
06-01-2012, 19:55
Dueteronomy 13:6-10,

And if I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel, you might have a point.

but if you want it straight from the man there's Matthew 10.

I don't see anything there about killing non-Christians (probably why Christians aren't doing that). Did you just make it up, or are you taking the Bible grossly out of context again? You're like a broken record with your duplicitous Bible interpretation.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 21:52
And if I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel, you might have a point. I know you aspire to be a member of an Iron Age monarchy, but my point stands. You have claimed both that Jesus is part of the Trinity and that Jesus didn't order any killed based on their religion or abandoning their faith. The quoted passage shows that those claims can't all be true, it has nothing to do with the time period or Israel.
I don't see anything there about killing non-Christians (probably why Christians aren't doing that). Did you just make it up, or are you taking the Bible grossly out of context again? Verses 21-22 and 34-38 don't echo punishment for those who fail to follow Christ? Do you want me to list the theologians who agree that they do? As for Christians not currently executing heretics, that's a very new development.
You're like a broken record with your duplicitous Bible interpretation.Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. Maybe your dogmatic blindness prevents you from actually reading what the Bible says.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 22:24
I know you aspire to be a member of an Iron Age monarchy,

Yes, like you aspire to be part of Stalin's anti-Christian campaign.

but my point stands. You have claimed both that Jesus is part of the Trinity and that Jesus didn't order any killed based on their religion or abandoning their faith. The quoted passage shows that those claims can't all be true, it has nothing to do with the time period or Israel.

Where does it say Jesus Christ in the OT? I said Jesus, obviously meaning His incarnate ministry in the NT under the New Covenant, but I suspect you really knew that.

Verses 21-22 and 34-38 don't echo punishment for those who fail to follow Christ?

More nonsense. 21-22 refers to Christians on the receiving end of persecution. 34-38 is a metaphor underscoring the inevitable conflict resulting from Christ's coming - between light and darkness and between Christ's children and the devil's children, as we see on this forum. If that is a command to kill unbelievers, why aren't Christians doing it, a la Islam? Do you also think when He said "I am the door" he looks like a door?

Do you want me to list the theologians who agree that they do?

Go ahead, I'm sure you have a long list of kooks.

As for Christians not currently executing heretics, that's a very new development.

Not really, that happened centuries ago, unlike your fellow atheists murdering 100 million 'heretics' years ago. Wait, it's still going on, isn't it?

Maybe your dogmatic blindness

Pot, meet kettle.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 23:22
Yes, like you aspire to be part of Stalin's anti-Christian campaign. It's funny, when you're asked to defend claims like this, you always fail to do so.
Where does it say Jesus Christ in the OT? Were you not the one who wrote, Jesus Christ incarnate as man, yes. Jesus Christ the third person of the trinity has always existed, and will always exist.
I said Jesus, obviously meaning His incarnate ministry in the NT under the New Covenant, but I suspect you really knew that. Why would that be obvious? Is Jesus only part of the Trinity when it is handy for you? You could save us all a lot of trouble and point out where in the NT the incarnate Jesus rejected the laws and practices of the OT. No hurry, any time tonight will be fine.

Paul7
06-02-2012, 07:05
Good point, Paul. Dhimmis say we need to suck up to Islam ("...do what we can to *not* make...them the enemy...") so maybe they won't hurt us, very definitely a position of weakness, especially post-9/11. Imagine some American saying, post Pearl Harbor, we need to do what we can to not make all Japanese the enemy:upeyes:

P.S. I notice AM never answered the question about whether he supports free speech or Islam...but I think we know the answer.

Muslim apologists/dhimmis rarely do. He is much more upset with the defeat of ancient Israel's enemies (perhaps he dislikes Jews like most Muslims do) than he is with this going on today:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Murfreesboro3.jpg

or this:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s320x320/554861_374730879249908_1391267528_n.jpg

Paul7
06-02-2012, 07:17
You could save us all a lot of trouble and point out where in the NT the incarnate Jesus rejected the laws and practices of the OT.


Luke 16:16
Matt.22:37-40

and
Rom.13:8-10
Gal.3:16-18,19-24

Really this is getting old. Through misunderstanding or deceit you imagine there is some kind of contradiction here and that you've discovered a giant 'gotcha' against the object of your hatred, Christianity. It has been settled in my religion for 2,000 years, whether you 'understand' it or not is irrelevant to me.

Animal Mother
06-02-2012, 17:05
Luke 16:16 Remind me, what does Luke 16:17 say?
Matt.22:37-40 See, you're having problems understanding again. There's no rejection of the law here, just an acknowledgement of the Greatest Commandment.
and
Rom.13:8-10
Gal.3:16-18,19-24 I'm fairly certain Jesus wrote neither Romans or Galatians.
Really this is getting old. Imagine how I feel. You're supposed to know scripture, yet you always seem confused about what it says.
Through misunderstanding or deceit you imagine there is some kind of contradiction here and that you've discovered a giant 'gotcha' against the object of your hatred, Christianity. It has been settled in my religion for 2,000 years, whether you 'understand' it or not is irrelevant to me.It may well have been settled in your religion, but it hasn't been settled in either Christianity or the Bible. I can understand how you'd want to stifle discussion though, considering how poorly prepared you always seem to be.

Paul7
06-02-2012, 17:31
Remind me, what does Luke 16:17 say?

As my Bible commentary says, the ministry of Jesus introducing the new covenant era was a fulfillment of the law (defining the old covenant era) in the most minute detail. Here's a good exposition of that verse by a Messianic Jewish Christian, in case you really want to learn instead of heaving a blizzard of silly, out of context questions:

http://www.livinggodministries.net/fulfill_the_law.html

Note Jesus taught the law because the New Covenant did not come into effect until His death and resurrection.

As far as the dietary rules, in Mark 7:19 it says Jesus declared all foods "clean".

Are you really egotistical enough to think the church has gotten this wrong for 2,000 years, only to be found out by an atheist with an axe to grind in 2012?

I'm fairly certain Jesus wrote neither Romans or Galatians.

No, but He did inspire them.

You're supposed to know scripture, yet you always seem confused about what it says.

Back at you. As the Bible says, "The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing."

It may well have been settled in your religion, but it hasn't been settled in either Christianity or the Bible.

Nonsense to both. Since Peter was straightened out on this, what major body of Christianity has held Christians are to maintain the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws?

I can understand how you'd want to stifle discussion though, considering how poorly prepared you always seem to be.

Discuss away, the more you do the more you embarrass yourself.

Animal Mother
06-02-2012, 22:03
As my Bible commentary says, the ministry of Jesus introducing the new covenant era was a fulfillment of the law (defining the old covenant era) in the most minute detail. I thought I'd explained that I was familiar with all the efforts at rationalizing the Bible over the centuries. Obviously, this becomes necessary when the actual text doesn't say what you want it to say.
Back at you. As the Bible says, "The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing." Another old favorite. Only those who believe as you do can possibly understand what the Bible actually means. I prefer the simpler expedient of actually reading it.
Nonsense to both. Since Peter was straightened out on this, what major body of Christianity has held Christians are to maintain the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws? Where did I say anything about dietary or ceremonial laws? Are you arguing that all of the OT laws are invalid to Christians?
Discuss away, the more you do the more you embarrass yourself.That must be why you constantly change the topic and try to trot out the "If you don't believe you can't understand it" line of thought.

Paul7
06-03-2012, 06:36
You can play your games with someone else. If you were an honest seeker it might be worth continuing, but it would be disobedient of me to continue to 'throw pearls before swine', as Jesus said, in the face of your irrational hatred of God and Christianity. Again, when Jesus encountered people like you, He sadly walked away.

kirgi08
06-03-2012, 07:25
Fear of the blind leap of faith.Not everything can be proven empirically.'08.

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 07:40
Do you think we would have seen more, less, or the same number of attacks compared to what we've actually seen, if a large majority of that 1.6 billion were actively supporting and planning terrorist attacks?



Right. My point was, do we go for making all of them the enemy immediately, or do we do what we can to *not* make all of them the enemy immediately? Let's say Glenn Beck's estimate of 10% is accurate, just for the sake of argument. That gives about 160 million Islamic terrorists worldwide. That's about half our population, give or take. What would happen if we, right now, took snowbird's tack, and treated the 100% (all 1.6 billion) as though they're the enemy? How would the world be different? Could we expect more of them to become the enemy? I certainly think so.

I somewhat get the impression you're fundamentally agreeing with me, but are posting as though you have to contest what I say.

We agree on the fact that it's not all of them. I think where we disagree, is on the numbers involved in jihad, and what should be done about it. There are plenty of examples of how they culturally behave differently depending on the current population. As the muslim population grows, they act more aggressively. When they are in the majority, full on sharia and theocracy become the goals.

As far as the percentage that support violence, it was declining, but still a significant number.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1338-3.gif
(Link to source) (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1338/declining-muslim-support-for-bin-laden-suicide-bombing)

The average is higher than 10%. Less than 40 people were likely "in the know" of 9/11 before it happened. It does not take much.

The problem is that the vast majority of muslims believe in the jihad. Only a lot of them believe that violence is necessary, many are not personally willing to die for the cause just yet, but they don't mind a bit if others do.

Islam has promised the muslims that they are destined to rule the earth. Sharia is deeply ingrained in their mentality. Many don't follow it, but for the devout muslims, they must follow sharia, and when they have sufficient numbers, they must impose it upon the infidels. Our values as a nation, are an open door to them. We believe in "innocent until proven guilty". And they know this. The ones with the desire to guarantee their place of honor in the afterlife will just wait until the time is right for them. The more infidels killed, the better.

The odds really don't mean that much. When a homicide bomber walks into the restaurant your children are in, as far as they are concerned, the odds are 100%. It can happen anywhere. Ft. Hood for instance. This piece of excrement was an Army Officer, and our own system protected him from discrimination, even when he was showing signs that he was "radicalized" (a term I disagree with). To muslims, his path was simply A path. Not the only one, but one that is available if the mood strikes you.

I was on Fort Hood that day. First time I visited post in over a year. I've been to more than one muslim country, talked with the people at length. Talked with our translators, the locals, and detainees/prisoners.

There is nothing I can do to stop the coming fight. It's simply coming. It is their destiny to attempt to rule the world, and they will continue to "struggle (jihad)" toward that end. At points in time, there will be clashes.

There are plenty of good and honorable muslims. I work with a lot of them. But I understand, there may be a day when that relationship changes suddenly. Their religion teaches them that all non muslims aren't people. They are animals to be tolerated when needed, and converted, killed, or enslaved when the opportunity presents itself. They are to behave when needed, and take over when the time is right. Lying to an infidel is not a sin, and is actually encouraged. Rape of an infidel is not rape. Killing of an infidel is not murder. Cheating an infidel is not dishonorable. etc etc etc.

As in any religion, there are different denominations or sects. The Iranian Shiite's are the real bat sh7t crazy ones. They believe that they must bring about a time of great chaos, in which 2/3 of the world population dies, in order to bring about the return of the 12th imam. It sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, but that's the way they think. Not everybody shares our morals, wants and needs. People are different around the world. For them, I don't know what to do. But the day that an Iranian Nuke goes off outside their borders, I'm going to wish we had nuked them first.

I don't hate muslims. But I will never fully trust one either.

It's not our freedoms that they hate, it's our position. We are (currently) the most powerful and influential country in the world, and that's their spot. We are occupying it. It is an affront to their god that we are there, and a constant reminder that they have not yet become worthy of his presence. If the USA had remained a small collection of states, and the Chinese were on top (coming soon to a theater near you) they would be the great Satan. Not because they hate sweet and sour pork, but because it's not them at the top.

I don't hate them either. I do understand that we are in the preliminaries to a big fight, we are just politically and culturally jockeying for position.

If you think blue laws are bad now, see what happens if they get to take over. The end will probably not be in our lifetime, but some of the battles will be.

snowbird
06-03-2012, 09:58
Good post, Cavalry Doc. I agree.

I also agree with what Jeff82 posted here a couple of years ago: "Pray for them and win them over to Christ, but be ready to kill them at the drop of a hat. They are Satan's tools in their current state".

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 10:05
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.michaeltotten.com/images/A%20Plan%20to%20Kill%20Everyone%20You%20Meet.jpg&sa=X&ei=H4vLT4npGab82gWXrqjaCw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHRMRT7_MzdbqrOQe8PpjXe0LCn1Q


Ours was a bit different. It was "be polite to everyone, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

juggy4711
06-03-2012, 19:58
There is some reason Islam is used to justify far more violence than any other major religion today. I personally couldn't care less what the reason is as it makes those who use it a justification no less dangerous.

Ours was a bit different. It was "be polite to everyone, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."[/QUOTE]

I like that slogan.

We certainly annihilated the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, after the war was for all practical purposes over.

Proof that you are completely delusional. No sane person could believe that.

Akil8290
06-03-2012, 23:14
Good post, Cavalry Doc. I agree.

I also agree with what Jeff82 posted here a couple of years ago: "Pray for them and win them over to Christ, but be ready to kill them at the drop of a hat. They are Satan's tools in their current state".

Are you prepared to kill me if I don't become a Christian?

kirgi08
06-04-2012, 08:12
:animlol:

snowbird
06-04-2012, 08:40
Are you prepared to kill me if I don't become a Christian?

No, the Bible, unlike the Koran, says, "Thou shalt do no murder".

Now here's a question for you; If they had had weapons and the opportunity, do you think Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh should have stopped their Muslim attackers with whatever force was necessary for self-defense?

Or how about any and all of those 1.5 million Armenian Christians who were murdered by Turkish Muslims?

In today's news, how about those 3 Jewish students in Villeurbanne, France, who were attacked by a Muslim mob with hammers and iron bars?

Mohammed especially hated Jews. That's why Jews are the canary in the mine, right up to today. Muslims start with them, but eventually will come after all of us.

snowbird
06-04-2012, 09:53
Is "gazillions" the actual number of radical muslims immigrating here?


That fact is far better established than 'facts' such as man-made global warming. Remember when hoity-toity leftard elitists said stuff like, "any point in discussing this issue is long past", "it's settled", "consensus has been reached", "everybody knows", and "only an idiot would think such a thing"? Anyway, we don't know who all is immigrating here: anti-Americans are still keeping our border wide open.

Let's remember just a few reasons why we should ban Muslim immigration:
-today's total of deadly Muslim attacks has reached 18,989
-Muslims worldwide showed how they would murder over a cartoon about Mohammed. Question: do you, or do you not, think that that is demonic madness?
-the Beslan school mass child rape and murder
-the Armenian Genocide
-and today's news, where Muslims in Afghanistan just poisoned another 97 girls for going to school. Question: do you want to keep on letting them immigrate here until they feel emboldened enough to do these sorts of things here? Oh, wait, they already started; remember 9/11, remember Fort Hood, remember the Portland, Oregon attempted Christmas tree bombing, remember all (or any?) of the 'honor' killings, etc, etc?

You're okay with all of this?

kirgi08
06-04-2012, 11:19
:notworthy: