# Pakistani Minister Killed



## Baron (Mar 2, 2011)

Another Pakistanis minister has been killed because of his criticism of the Islamic blasphemy law.

Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's minister for minorities, was killed by gunmen in the second attack this year on a high-profile figure who has opposed the country's blasphemy law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12617562


----------



## KangTheMad (Mar 2, 2011)

When will they learn that intolerance leads to violence?


----------



## Baron (Mar 2, 2011)

KangTheMad said:


> When will they learn that intolerance leads to violence?


 
In this case it's opposing intolerance that has led to violence.


----------



## KangTheMad (Mar 2, 2011)

Wow, such a lovely place in the world. I think I'll buy a winter home there. Might as well buy a funeral home too.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 2, 2011)

They will never stop.


----------



## Gumby (Mar 2, 2011)

I have nothing but awe and admiration for someone who, knowing that he would be killed for it, still professes his belief in Christ and the rights of people to freely worship as they please without persecution. I wonder how many of us would have stood firm in the same circumstances?


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 2, 2011)

Gumby said:


> I have nothing but awe and admiration for someone who, knowing that he would be killed for it, still professes his belief in Christ and the rights of people to freely worship as they please without persecution. I wonder how many of us would have stood firm in the same circumstances?


 
Amen to that, Gumby. Many would've crumbled to that pressure.

On a side note, finally I found a forum (here in WF) that embraces the right to freely worship, whatever religion it may be. Most of the forums I visit are downright atheists who see God as nothing but an irrational imagination made by man. I am slowly leaving those sites, fearing that I myself are being influenced by such people.

Btw, Gumby, have you ever heard of any text by Joel Rosenberg? He's a good Christian writer, and in one of his non-fiction books, Inside the Revolution, he predicted that one way or another, Pakistan will fall into the hands of the Islamic rebels, and use the nuclear weapons of Pakistan to launch a massive Jihad, and this will usher in the return of the Twelfth Imam, in Islam belief. To us Christians, that's the second coming, yes?


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 2, 2011)

:-k Never heard of Twelfth Imam thing.

Welp, I'll have to say this for Islam and her ummah, for whatever her current shortcomings, she still puts out the best calligraphy in the world.


----------



## Baron (Mar 3, 2011)

Christians “subjects of hate” inside Pakistan: Vatican

Shahbaz Bhatti: Pakistan's only Christian minister killed by Taliban gunman | Mail Online


----------



## Gumby (Mar 3, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> Amen to that, Gumby. Many would've crumbled to that pressure.
> 
> On a side note, finally I found a forum (here in WF) that embraces the right to freely worship, whatever religion it may be. Most of the forums I visit are downright atheists who see God as nothing but an irrational imagination made by man. I am slowly leaving those sites, fearing that I myself are being influenced by such people.
> 
> Btw, Gumby, have you ever heard of any text by Joel Rosenberg? He's a good Christian writer, and in one of his non-fiction books, Inside the Revolution, he predicted that one way or another, Pakistan will fall into the hands of the Islamic rebels, and use the nuclear weapons of Pakistan to launch a massive Jihad, and this will usher in the return of the Twelfth Imam, in Islam belief. To us Christians, that's the second coming, yes?


 
I've heard of him, but haven't read his books, Fuhrer. Actually, the coming of the Mahdi (twelfth Imam) sounds like a bad thing to me. But I must confess that I've not studied it closely. Here is a link to an article that explains the belief better than I could ever do. This is written by Joel Rosenberg, btw.


Understanding Egypt: The twelfth Imam, and the end of days | The Blaze

The following is a quote from this article, which shows the role the Twelvers believe Jesus will play.



> Shias believe the Mahdi will return at the end of history—during a time of chaos, carnage, and confusion—to establish righteousness, justice, and peace. When he comes, they say, the Mahdi will bring Jesus with him XE “Jesus, role of in Shia eschatology” . Jesus will be a Muslim and will serve as his deputy, not as King of kings and Lord of lords as the Bible teaches, and he will force non-Muslims to choose between following the Mahdi or death.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 4, 2011)

> Jesus will be a Muslim and will serve as his deputy, not as King of kings and Lord of lords as the Bible teaches, and he will force non-Muslims to choose between following the Mahdi or death.



I've read this, too, but not in the article, rather in the book I told you about.

Scary, huh?

And btw, thanks for the article! Now I know Rosenberg has a new upcoming novel!


----------



## Custard (Mar 4, 2011)

Hey you got that part wrong, Mehdi comes before Jesus (Hazrat Isa for us), then again carnage comes and of course that is the coming of the anti-Christ (Dajjal for us), who is killed by Jesus in his second coming.

The second thing is that it is practically impossible for anyone to take over the nuclear assets, firstly the protection provided to the stations is very good. Have you heard of P.M.A, its right here in Abbotabad. There have been NO terrorist attacks in Abbotabad even though P.M.A is the place where every army officer is trained.

Secondly, don't believe a word that it was a terrorists, the higher probability is that it was a target killing, politicians are killing each other right left and center. Here the only people that are politicians are those that are the bad-asses. Again the government will proclaim him a martyr just like Benazir and Salman Tasir. All of them were corrupt to the core, that is the only way that anyone is going to get anywhere in politics in Pakistan. You have to provide help to the big boys and work up from the bottom like a foot soldier.


----------



## Baron (Mar 4, 2011)

It's only to be expected that there would be attempts to discredit these men.  The fact the they spoke out again the unjust anti-blasphemy laws is a matter of public record.

Islam has teachings which are a blasphemy against Christianity.  The denial of Jesus as the Son of God and claims that he holds a lesser position to Mohammed are blasphemous from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint.  The words "God has no Son", a blatant denial of Christian belief, are engraved on the wall of the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem.  How much of an outcry would there be if Christians started asking for the blasphemy laws to be equally applied to Muslims?  Instead, reasonable men are asking that laws be amended so that all faiths are free to worship without fear and they're being killed for it.


----------



## Custard (Mar 4, 2011)

No body is denying the fact that they spoke out against the anti-blasphemy laws and the media as well as the government will hail him as martyr, just like benazir and Tasir. It is my point of view that they were (since the are dead) corrupt so they should not be hailed as martyrs and please don't say that they were not corrupt, its impossible.

The fact is that it takes time for the masses to see that they are wrong, remember slavery? Remember the witch hunts? it took time and people realized that it was wrong. Just like the people in your country have different opinions about drug use, people here have different opinions about this issue.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 4, 2011)

They are demanding that Sharia Law be enacted right along with the other laws of some governments in Europe. They will never stop. I saw a video that explains that in order for a culture to continue to exist, they must reproduce at 2.11 children per couple. No culture has ever survived a 1.9 fertility rate. At a fertility rate of 1.3, it is impossible to reverse. This video breaks it all down to simple numbers, but it is chilling to say the least. As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.8. England, 1.6. Greece 1.3. Italy, 1.2.

The population of Europe is growing though, 90% of all immigrants have been Islamic and they are reproducing at 8.1. Yes, 8.1 kids per household. Check out the video...

YouTube - Muslim Demographics


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Mar 4, 2011)

Ditch said:


> They are demanding that Sharia Law be enacted right along with the other laws of some governments in Europe. They will never stop. I saw a video that explains that in order for a culture to continue to exist, they must reproduce at 2.11 children per couple. No culture has ever survived a 1.9 fertility rate. At a fertility rate of 1.3, it is impossible to reverse. This video breaks it all down to simple numbers, but it is chilling to say the least. As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.8. England, 1.6. Greece 1.3. Italy, 1.2.
> 
> The population of Europe is growing though, 90% of all immigrants have been Islamic and they are reproducing at 8.1. Yes, 8.1 kids per household. Check out the video...
> 
> YouTube - Muslim Demographics


 
Statistics show that when society's are educated, they produce less children. First generation immigrants will have these insane child-birth numbers, but I imagine following generations, the generations that will be educated, will produce significantly less children, (I say 'imagine', but this has already happened in the UK, or at least in my borough anyway. Just because you have a certain religion or skin-colour doesn't mean you automatically shoot out babies every other second...). 

Plus, as the overall population numbers grow, (due to immigration _and_ people living longer), nations will become increasingly more agitated, closing down borders and possibly doing what Beijing has, introducing a law that only one child is allowed per household. As the world becomes more crowded, the elderly live ever longer lives, and diseases all become curable, laws limiting child-birth are probably unpreventable. 

So will immigrants become the dominant culture/religion? Probably not.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> No body is denying the fact that they spoke out against the anti-blasphemy laws and the media as well as the government will hail him as martyr, just like benazir and Tasir. It is my point of view that they were (since the are dead) corrupt so they should not be hailed as martyrs and please don't say that they were not corrupt, its impossible.
> 
> The fact is that it takes time for the masses to see that they are wrong, remember slavery? Remember the witch hunts? it took time and people realized that it was wrong. Just like the people in your country have different opinions about drug use, people here have different opinions about this issue.



Though I'm not a practicing Catholic and twice as sinful as any Muslim on earth, I was reared Catholic and understand the basic instincts of that faith (though not greater volume of its theology). Therefore, I say this from that background, what the Pakistani Government declares is not essential (though nice trimming on a tree). From a standpoint of the Catholic Church (which in concept is similar to the concept of the one world Islamic ummah) he is a martyr. Martyrdom is not one and the same as sainthood or saintliness. A man exposed to corruption in the world - be it Italy or Pakistan - who prudently negotiates the corrupt terrain of a system to effect change or provide protection to those he represents can become a martyr if his blood is spilled in the quest for justice or for his Christian faith. 

Mr. Bhatti is a martyr in every sense of the term. He has won his crown and no one in Pakistan - Christian or Muslim - can steal it from him.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 4, 2011)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> Statistics show that when society's are educated, they produce less children.  Just because you have a certain religion or skin-colour doesn't mean you automatically shoot out babies every other second...).



Statistics show the opposite. America is an educated country and these are our statistics.  In CA, only 27.4% of births were White children.  Amazingly, this is  even worse than New Mexico (28.1%).  The low percentage of White  children born in CA was bested only by Hawaii (24.7%)  and D.C. (25.9%).   Texas is also surprisingly low, at 34.3%.

States where Hispanic births outnumber White births: 
New Mexico (56.0%-28.1%)
California (52.1%-27.4%)
Texas (50.1%-34.3%)
Arizona (43.6%-42.4%)
Nevada is close, but White births are slightly ahead (41.1%-38.9%).

Birth rate per 1,000 population 16.3 15.9 15.5 15.2 14.8    14.7 14.5 14.6 









  White 15.4 15.0 14.7 14.4 14.2      14.1 13.9 14.0 
  Black 21.9 21.3 20.5 19.5 18.2      17.8 17.7 17.7 
  American Indian 18.3 18.4 17.8 17.1 16.6      16.6 16.6 17.1 
  Asian or Pacific Islander 18.2 18.0 17.7 17.5 17.3      17.0 16.9 16.4


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Ditch said:


> They are demanding that Sharia Law be enacted right along with the other laws of some governments in Europe. They will never stop. I saw a video that explains that in order for a culture to continue to exist, they must reproduce at 2.11 children per couple. No culture has ever survived a 1.9 fertility rate. At a fertility rate of 1.3, it is impossible to reverse. This video breaks it all down to simple numbers, but it is chilling to say the least. As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.8. England, 1.6. Greece 1.3. Italy, 1.2.
> 
> The population of Europe is growing though, 90% of all immigrants have been Islamic and they are reproducing at 8.1. Yes, 8.1 kids per household. Check out the video...
> 
> YouTube - Muslim Demographics



Europe will receive punishment for its transgressions and paganism. I shed no tear for Europe. Within my life time the cries of her children will reach the heavens as they roast in the fires of her cities.

The United States is not far behind. The Democratic Party at present is not run by atheist but by members of the Church of Satan. Her many atheist and pagan members have simply been unwittingly co-opted into the religious war of the Satanic. The Satanic go directly after the iconography of Jesus and the Virgin Mary - not Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, Krishna or whoever. That's why they have the "Black *Mass*" and not something attacking Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu ritual and worship. For whatever reason... the Satanic have special hatred for Jesus and Madonna.

Though Democrats - like liberals in Europe - embrace Islam and protect and praise it in verbal and written rhetoric, it was not Islamic action when Hillary Clinton and Democrats offered political protection and mass support to the publicly financed "Sensation" art exhibition in New York City or the the "Piss Christ" art. It was Satanic. It was not atheist. Atheism is indifferent and would merely study art iconography from a scholarly standpoint. It would not express a religious view (Satanic view). And Muslims in general have too much class to attack a figure like the Virgin Mary. They also speak of Jesus respectfully. 

So, when Hillary Clinton and Obama provided political influential protection (that's what it was essentially, all rhetoric aside a lawyer would use pointing out no Constitutional Law was broken) for the Muslim Koran, protecting Islam from blasphemy, by pressuring a Christian preacher to not burn copies of the Koran, it became that much more clear to me what religion was providing belief and power in the Democratic Party. And it's not Islam. The Satanic enjoy demoting Jesus in rank.

The only thing I regret in the case of Europe is that the great artistic treasures and centuries old symbols of Christian heritage will be destroyed when the fires blaze. That includes Vatican City likely. But hopefully Vatican City can be diplomatically negotiated out to be remain in Christian hands (Protestant or Catholic and Protestant if not to remain under the stewardship of the Catholic Bishops).

But it might be St. Peters fate to be turned into a mosque. I don't think the Muslims would destroy it. 

Like the Papacy once turned it's eyes towards the barbarian Germanic tribes and away from a learned, wealthy, metrosexual Constantinople increasingly unable to defend itself from a growing Islamic force, the Church needs to look towards the machismo world of Latin America and the redoubtable men and women of Asia. And if some Catholic Bishop or Cardinal in Europe and the United States thinks I'm going to roll over and go into "ecumenical" dialogue with the Satanic, because it's "cool" and nothings worth fighting over, then he has another thing coming.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Mar 4, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Statistics show the opposite. America is an educated country and these are our statistics. In CA, only 27.4% of births were White children. Amazingly, this is even worse than New Mexico (28.1%). The low percentage of White children born in CA was bested only by Hawaii (24.7%) and D.C. (25.9%). Texas is also surprisingly low, at 34.3%.
> 
> States where Hispanic births outnumber White births:
> New Mexico (56.0%-28.1%)
> ...


 
America may be an educated country, that doesn't mean the moment an immigrant enters it they are suddenly educated. First generation immigrants will have the highest births, (possibly way outnumbering white births, depending on where they're from/how educated the place they're from is/how rich or poor they are), second generation immigrants will likely take a middle-ground, (educated/influenced by America, but also by their parents who are not), and then third generation immigrants are likely to be exactly or just slightly above the average birth rates, (assuming the third generation is not in poverty).

The birth rate list, as far as I'm aware, proves exactly what I have said... Those are all states that have had trouble with immigration from latin america/mexico recently, aren't they? (So still on first/second generation immigrants).


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Mar 4, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> Europe will receive punishment for its transgressions and paganism. I shed no tear for Europe. Within my life time the cries of her children will reach the heavens as they roast in the fires of her cities.
> 
> The United States is not far behind. The Democratic Party at present is not run by atheist but by members of the Church of Satan. Her many atheist and pagan members have simply been unwittingly co-opted into the religious war of the Satanic. The Satanic go directly after the iconography of Jesus and the Virgin Mary - not Buddha, Mohammad, Moses, Krishna or whoever. That's why they have the "Black *Mass*" and not something attacking Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu ritual and worship. For whatever reason... the Satanic have special hatred for Jesus and Madonna.
> 
> ...



I do hope you know how insane you sound right now...


----------



## Custard (Mar 4, 2011)

no, no, no, that simply wont do. So you are telling me that a person that spoke out once against a law is automatically a martyr? Even if he is as corrupt as the devil himself? The politicians here are the ones that are literally like the French before the French revolution, with the exception that they don't proclaim it out loud. But some part of me seems to agree with you, but since a martyr goes to heaven i protest it with every fiber of my being. Trust me you don't know anything about how sinful Muslims are, the only reason i Even read prayer is because of my mother (god bless her) stands over me till i do so.

now on to ditch, look he is right that people who are educated have less children. People that are poorer have more children. I have only one sister and everyone who is related to me has a maximum of three children, that is because they are all educated. I met a guy on the bus who had 21 brothers and sisters, any one could see that he was from the tribal areas.

I got three more posts in the time i took to write this. Now please don't mention the Quran burning, it infuriated me as well and i don't get angry about matters of Islam easily. you people are supposed to be the educated ones, burning the Quran you should know better than that and Writ did you just hear yourself? you sounded more like a Christan/ taliban speaker. the fact is that we don't speak badly about the bible or any of the prophets because we believe that they are real (we just use different names)


----------



## Baron (Mar 4, 2011)

I believe the recording made for the BBC several months ago is self explanatory:  He predicts his assassination and his commitment to stand on what he believes despite the threat.  There's a strange contradiction if this statement is being made by someone who is only in politics for his own personal gain.

BBC News - Pakistan Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti shot dead


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

InsanityStrickenWriter said:


> I do hope you know how insane you sound right now...



:lol: Well... insanity or the insane help keep things interesting. I'm not bipolar, "I'm bi-winning. I win here and I win here."

Give me a small tactical nuke and I'm going to start "bi-winning" on some Pakistani a___. They gonna "respect my gangsta."


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> no, no, no, that simply wont do. So you are telling me that a person that spoke out once against a law is automatically a martyr? Even if he is as corrupt as the devil himself?



Yeah, that's exactly what I'm telling you.

Aside from the fact I have my doubts the man was "as corrupt as the devil himself." For all I know he could have been saintly or not. I can't automatically disprove or believe your words. But I'll acknowledge a mathematical probability that your claim of his corruption - and all Pakistani politicians - could be true. 

But like Baron suggested, there is equally the probability that some in Pakistan may unjustly smear Mr. Bhatti's name. 



> The politicians here are the ones that are literally like the French before the French revolution, with the exception that they don't proclaim it out loud. But some part of me seems to agree with you, but since a martyr goes to heaven i protest it with every fiber of my being. Trust me you don't know anything about how sinful Muslims are, the only reason i Even read prayer is because of my mother (god bless her) stands over me till i do so.


:lol: Or maybe you just don't know how sinful I am.

What's up with the Twelth Imam thing too? What the h___ koolaid you cats drinking from?

Well, I can't say that as those of us reared Christian profess faith in Jesus rising from the dead and one day returning. Hopefully to kick the s&%^ out of his enemies with a legion of angels packed with M-16's. They gonna "respect his gangsta" on that day.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> now on to ditch, look he is right that people who are educated have less children. People that are poorer have more children. I have only one sister and everyone who is related to me has a maximum of three children, that is because they are all educated. I met a guy on the bus who had 21 brothers and sisters, any one could see that he was from the tribal areas.



In the sciences we are reminded that correlation does not mean causation.

There are practical matters for the poor having numerous children - especially so for rural folks that work farms.

I'm not sure the educational attainment of Osama Bin Laden and his father but both have multiple wives and a good number of children. Osama himself was his father's *50th* child. 

In the U.S. the Baby Boomers by-and-large produced less children than their parents. Both my parents have at least 5 siblings. My father has something like 10 siblings. I only have 2. About 3 kids was typical of the Baby Boomers. 

I would love to have 7 kids so long as I could properly afford them. That's partly due to "my education." I know that population growth, generally speaking, is needed for economic growth. I know that Mexico City and London will always kick the s___ out of a small town in the U.S. with a population of 1,000. And I know if I'd like to have a dynasty and be a self contained unit (family not needing government physical and financial protection) it would behoove me to get my "pimpin" on in the marital bed with my wife like I was a Borgia or Medici. That's Kennedy style pimpin right there.



> I got three more posts in the time i took to write this. Now please don't mention the Quran burning, it infuriated me as well and i don't get angry about matters of Islam easily. you people are supposed to be the educated ones, burning the Quran you should know better than that and Writ did you just hear yourself? you sounded more like a Christan/ taliban speaker. the fact is that we don't speak badly about the bible or any of the prophets because we believe that they are real (we just use different names)


Well... I never said burning the Koran was right. I did not agree with that Christian preacher. As you might know, the Pope spoke against his plans. 

But I was speaking about U.S. Constitutional Law. That's the highest law in the United States. According to Constitutional Law people have right to "freedom of speech" (e.g., burning flags, Bibles, Korans etc.) and the Government is not to place one religion above another. Essentially the Democrats placed Islam above Christianity - or at least Catholicism - by politically supporting the publicly financed (meaning tax payers dollars) blaspheming of Christ (crucifix in urine) and Madonna (Virgin Mary image made from porn pictures and elephant dung), but politically intervening to protect Islam from any blasphemy (that was not even publicly financed). 

And I already noted Muslims have more class than to disrespect the Virgin Mary or Jesus. In general. Some Muslims in mob anger have blasphemed Christian religious icons and alters.

So, since it was not Islamic nor atheist what the Democrats did, it was clearly of Satanic belief.


----------



## Nick (Mar 4, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> On a side note, finally I found a forum (here in WF) that embraces the right to freely worship, whatever religion it may be. Most of the forums I visit are downright atheists who see God as nothing but an irrational imagination made by man. I am slowly leaving those sites, fearing that I myself are being influenced by such people.


 
I wouldn't say _all_ religions. Don't forget that there are other kinds of discrimination on this forum, as subtle as the Daily Mail. Make sure you don't get influenced by the likes of this thread like you would on the atheistic forums.


----------



## Nick (Mar 4, 2011)

The misunderstanding of Islam in this thread is so thick it's edible. Islam is a very peaceful practise; one who does not practice it as such is the same as any extremist.

Can we all remember that while it's all fine to be patriotic to your country and it's 'home religion', that we are all from our roots probably either Nordic or Pagan. So let us toast to Odin in this hall of Valhalla and pray to the Triple Goddess for rain. Who cares about Christianity? It was only thrust upon our ancestors by a zealous autocratic empire.


----------



## Baron (Mar 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> The misunderstanding of Islam in this thread is so thick it's edible. Islam is a very peaceful practise; one who does not practice it as such is the same as any extremist.
> 
> Can we all remember that while it's all fine to be patriotic to your country and it's 'home religion', that we are all from our roots probably either Nordic or Pagan. So let us toast to Odin in this hall of Valhalla and pray to the Triple Goddess for rain. Who cares about Christianity? It was only thrust upon our ancestors by a zealous autocratic empire.


 
Of course it's totally irresponsible of the press to report the peaceful slaying of a man who opposed the blasphemy law in Pakistan.  It's obviously equally wrong for Amnesty International to campaign on behalf of those who are faced with the death penalty under that law.  Those who assassinate those who are accused before they come to trial are obviously expressing their belief in a peaceful fashion and we should not be alarmed by it at all.


----------



## Nick (Mar 4, 2011)

Baron said:


> Of course it's totally irresponsible of the press to report the peaceful slaying of a man who opposed the blasphemy law in Pakistan.  It's obviously equally wrong for Amnesty International to campaign on behalf of those who are faced with the death penalty under that law.  Those who assassinate those who are accused before they come to trial are obviously expressing their belief in a peaceful fashion and we should not be alarmed by it at all.


 
Of course it's absolutely acceptable. But it's extremely convenient that the news reaches the forum in the fashion that it has, Baron, and obviously not in the least bit suggestive when accounting Islam as the blame, rather than the government or officials. 

We don't blame the Bible or Catholicism when the Vatican covers up another paedophilic priest and reinstate him at his rank. We blame the Vatican, because it did it - not the Bible.

And someone better not call up the Gestapo on me.


----------



## Nick (Mar 4, 2011)

Baron said:


> Of course it's totally irresponsible of the press to report the peaceful slaying of a man who opposed the blasphemy law in Pakistan.  It's obviously equally wrong for Amnesty International to campaign on behalf of those who are faced with the death penalty under that law.  Those who assassinate those who are accused before they come to trial are obviously expressing their belief in a peaceful fashion and we should not be alarmed by it at all.


 
Of course it's absolutely acceptable. But it's extremely convenient that the news reaches the forum in the fashion that it has, Baron, and obviously not in the least bit suggestive when accounting Islam as the blame, rather than the government or officials. 

We don't blame the Bible or Catholicism when the Vatican covers up another paedophilic priest and reinstate him at his rank. We blame the Vatican, because it did it - not the Bible.

And someone better not call up the Gestapo on me.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

I don't advice listening to this "song" - I have not but for a split second - but the title is enough to communicate to a reasonable person the beliefs and belief system. 

A contemporary Democrat - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or Buddhist - can easily be duped by eliminating any reference to Satanism and simply calling this "atheist non-religious beliefs expressed in art and freedom of speech." 

I'm mulatto, I've charged individual white people (some on this board in that past) with being racist with far less overt evidence than this Satanic song or the Piss Christ and Sensation art exhibitions. A Black-American on this board accused me of racism - against black people - for my critical and unflattering comments about cultural norms among Black-American women. That was far from any overt "evidence" observable in the "Piss Christ" or the Virgin Mary depiction with porn images. 

If unknown members of the KKK puts on an art exhibition commemorating the lynching of Black-Americans, Jews, and Italians but claims its non-racist does that make it so? No.

And Satanic beliefs (contradict Christ and Madonna and blaspheme both) are Satanic beliefs and not atheism any way you cut it. 

I don't think Hilary Clinton or Obama are Satanist. What I think is that unknown Satanists within the Democratic Party steer both, and the masses in the Democratic Party, unwittingly towards Satanic *belief orientated* goals. Abortion - contradicting the *optimistic* narrative of the baby that saves coming through the female womb of the Holy Family - is apart of that. Now, I'm instructed by Democrats that I should be pessimistic about child birth (which destroys ecosystems, leads to war and crimes) and support medical doctors being turned into - essentially - legal assassins. 

1. YouTube - Satanic Scums-The Virgin Mary is a Whore

2. Sensation (art exhibition) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> _The Holy Virgin Mary_ by Chris Ofili, which had not provoked this reaction in London. While the press reported that the piece was smeared[_citation needed_]  with elephant dung, Ofili's work in fact showed a carefully rendered  black Madonna decorated with a resin-covered lump of elephant dung. The  figure is also surrounded by small collaged images of female genitalia  from pornographic magazines


There are Satanists within the Catholic Church - both in laity and clergy - so, the Democratic Party is not the only organization to be infiltrated by these people.

It does not take a rocket scientist - nor insanity - to connect the roots to the same belief messages in both the links above. That is to say, that both have roots in Satanic belief.


----------



## Custard (Mar 4, 2011)

You are talking as though if this is the first time any assassination has been done because of religious reasons, now perhaps i should adopt a more conservative approach on this rather than a liberal one. Do you think that people are angry for no reason, that people blow themselves up just because they want to? You are the ones responsible for bolstering the Taliban in its start and now America is the one who is practically increasing the taliban numbers. 

what do you think happens when you do drone attacks and innocent civillians die? Their children join the taliban, so here the only reason the taliban are not only surviving but also increasing in number is because you launched an attack on Afghanistan and it definitely did not help when America invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass invisibility. There is a reason why the anger is being fuled and you are the ones pouring the oil on the fire.

Now why the hell do you always watch channels based in england for news on Pakistan, we have over 10 news channels each of them reports news that is just as good as any other channel. Watch Dawn news for news in English, you can practically watch news that relates to Pakistan (any channel will do except PTV, which believes that Pakistan has no terrorists at all).

Again people die when they speak out no matter how the do so, remember John Brown (the guy who released black slaves), i really like that guy but he died at the gallows. that is what happens when you speak out, simple as that. The other point raised constantly in my face is that why do you look only here why not look at the rest of the countries where the same thing happens but we don't see it on the news, it something like oh... "another activist dead in ------, now moving on we are seeing new advances in technology of vacume cleaners"


----------



## Baron (Mar 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> Of course it's absolutely acceptable. But it's extremely convenient that the news reaches the forum in the fashion that it has, Baron, and obviously not in the least bit suggestive when accounting Islam as the blame, rather than the government or officials.
> 
> We don't blame the Bible or Catholicism when the Vatican covers up another paedophilic priest and reinstate him at his rank. We blame the Vatican, because it did it - not the Bible.
> 
> And someone better not call up the Gestapo on me.


 
The OP is nothing more than a link to the news as it was published.  The facts of the incident speak for themselves.  Any discussion of motives other than the obvious are speculation when you have the man speaking of the threats he'd received in an interview that took place before a group of _heroes_ gunned him down.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Nick said:


> Of course it's absolutely acceptable. But it's extremely convenient that the news reaches the forum in the fashion that it has, Baron, and obviously not in the least bit suggestive when accounting Islam as the blame, rather than the government or officials.
> 
> We don't blame the Bible or Catholicism when the Vatican covers up another paedophilic priest and reinstate him at his rank. We blame the Vatican, because it did it - not the Bible.
> 
> And someone better not call up the Gestapo on me.



The Vatican is the subject of critical critique and negative diction by secular journalism all the time. Your use of the word "cover up" and negation of suggestions by psychologists who treated Priests evidences that. And that you feel the need to use the Catholic Church as a red herring also evidences that.

How many current cases of pedophilia do you hear about in the Catholic Church now? What you hear about are old cases - adults coming forward against old men.

In contrast the secular public school system of the United States has cases of pedophilia in current times. Often by young female teachers with young girls or boys. One resulted in an abduction of a little girl (her student) and if I remember correctly she killed the girl.

Both this inspires little intrigue among the contemporary consumers of news media. 






The fact is members within Islam - perhaps a very small percentage - are engaged in unconventional military warfare with societies that are Buddhist (Thailand), Hindu (India), Christian (Philippines), and Jewish (Israel). There is no need for you to divide the world into Christian and Muslim - except that it helps to make your narrative more persuasive. If the media was reducible to being pro-Catholic (only reporting flattering things about the Catholic Church and never reporting on say... pedophilia) or pro-Christian it would be damning Buddhism and Hinduism in news reports to the extent it does towards Islam. 

Members in this thread would be stating similar about Buddhism and Hinduism.

As for me, my perspective of the coming of sharia law to Europe is less "anti-Muslim" as it is holding a perspective that a society that becomes 60% or 90% Nazi or communist will reflect the beliefs and ideologies of those comprehensive doctrines.  

You can fall back on your red herring of the 1% of Priests that were pedophiles and the 6 or 7% or so that were involved with teenagers, it still won't change my points.


----------



## Baron (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> You are talking as though if this is the first time any assassination has been done because of religious reasons, now perhaps i should adopt a more conservative approach on this rather than a liberal one. Do you think that people are angry for no reason, that people blow themselves up just because they want to? You are the ones responsible for bolstering the Taliban in its start and now America is the one who is practically increasing the taliban numbers.
> 
> what do you think happens when you do drone attacks and innocent civillians die? Their children join the taliban, so here the only reason the taliban are not only surviving but also increasing in number is because you launched an attack on Afghanistan and it definitely did not help when America invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass invisibility. There is a reason why the anger is being fuled and you are the ones pouring the oil on the fire.
> 
> ...


 
There are a lot of people in the West who in no way support military action in the Middle Ease, least of all the slaughter of women an children in the bombing raids.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> Again people die when they speak out no matter how the do so, remember John Brown (the guy who released black slaves), i really like that guy but he died at the gallows. that is what happens when you speak out, simple as that.



Actually, if my memory is correct, John Brown murdered people. Whether is cause was righteous or not he gunned people down. So, he was executed for a little more than just "speaking out."


----------



## Custard (Mar 4, 2011)

you get what i meant by that don't you? Its just that sh** happens to people, you don't go around saying that unless you have a battalion of soldiers and a party (the political kind) at the ready around you because other than the taliban the politicians are going to use you to score points in the political game and the typical angry mob of people is going to come after you.

well you see that is a small part of the problem, the eventual outcome of this war is obvious, America is going to have to retreat. the other thing is that the taliban will vanish into thin air in the next 10 or 15 years as the middle eastern oil reserves vanish and thusly the oil money is gone, the taliban have no funding and the no ammo and eventually it will consume itself by war. Had the US adopted a more political approach and just let the taliban rot while stepping up its national security funding the problem would have been dealt with more easily with a lower loss of life. but the past is something that is always sad so we look to the future. now for a phrase used by me
 "the world turns around every day because of hope"


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 4, 2011)

Custard said:


> you get what i meant by that don't you? Its just that sh** happens to people, you don't go around saying that unless you have a battalion of soldiers and a party (the political kind) at the ready around you because other than the taliban the politicians are going to use you to score points in the political game and the typical angry mob of people is going to come after you.



Custard, so ____ happens to people, tragic, but not a "big deal," but it's okay for Muslims to make a big deal out of the planned burning of Korans?

Nick might agree with you. I don't on that score.

No one in this thread has responded by burning Pakistani flags or forming in large mobs calling for the death of Pakistan - unlike responses around the world to the announcement a relative few books - Korans - will be burned.   

But I understand the point you were trying to make about John Brown. Although, I don't see why your expressed outrage over Korans planned to be burned would be more "righteous" than the expressed frustration, sorrow, or regret over the assassination of Mr. Bhatti.

Some of this comes down to comprehensive doctrines. Similar to political-economics views like capitalism versus socialism or communism. From a Catholic instinctual point of view a pile of bibles (post printing press and internet) burning is not as serious as say.... stoning a woman to death for adultery or assassinating a man because he is politically advocating against discrimination towards his religious minority group be they Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu.  

I'll admit colonial Catholics certainly were no models of this (tolerance). But we are in the year 2011 and I can't turn the hands of time back to the 1400's.

If it's any comfort... there are a few *lay* Catholics ("conservative" oriented) that would burn me at the stake if they had their way. 

Such it is when people become very self righteous. The Muslim assassins that hit Mr. Bhatti, were probably self righteous too, or at least those that paid or employed them.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 5, 2011)

Nick - some members have certain biases, which is a layer one should peel away when reading their posts. 



KangTheMad said:


> When will they learn that intolerance leads to violence?


 
 The extremes of the human condition... gotta love it... or completely hate it, either or...

But, I've come to realize is that under the right conditions, we are all capable of evil. Seek to understand the emotions and motivations behind the crime in order to avoid walking down those roads yourself. 



Ditch said:


> ...YouTube - Muslim Demographics


 
Well, rest your worried mind, Ditch; the EU  has always considered itself to be Christian (and probably will for  quite some time). Heck, they didn't even allow Turkey to join. Maybe Muslims will become the next gypsies?


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 5, 2011)

Custard said:


> Hey you got that part wrong, Mehdi comes before Jesus (Hazrat Isa for us), then again carnage comes and of course that is the coming of the anti-Christ (Dajjal for us), who is killed by Jesus in his second coming.


 
I guess you are a reformist, then. Good for you. Here's the deal: The radicals (the terrorists who keep on insisting the outer Jihad) insist this as the foremost doctrine of Islam. Of course, we know that there are discrepancies, but Al Qaeda (read Rosenberg's Inside the Revolution for various references) and the other forefront Islamic terrorists keep on saying that the only way to salvation is by outer Jihad and die a martyr, thus terrorism.




Custard said:


> So you are telling me that a person that spoke out once against a law is automatically a martyr? *Even if he is as corrupt as the devil himself?*



Basis to say that he is "as corrupt as the devil himself?" (I'm assuming that we're referring to the assassinated fellow that started this whole thread.) Or if this was conditional, say in theory, then I have no further questions.

And for the record, no. It is my belief that any person who speaks against a law is not grounds for martyrdom.



Nick said:


> I wouldn't say _all_ religions. Don't forget that there are other kinds of discrimination on this forum, as subtle as the Daily Mail. Make sure you don't get influenced by the likes of this thread like you would on the atheistic forums.


 
Thank you for the warning. It is very well appreciated. I myself am neutral with regards to religion, just as so that this freedom (or the freedom not  to worship, for that matter) is retained and respected.



Nick said:


> Islam is a very peaceful practise; one who does not practice it as such is the same as any extremist.



I totally agree that Islam is a peaceful practice. I myself have never attested that, or if I ever did, then please point it out to me so I shall be able to correct it and ask for apologies.



Nick said:


> Who cares about Christianity? It was only thrust upon our ancestors by a zealous autocratic empire.



Incorrect. It was thrust upon us (I'm assuming you're referring to Constantine. If you're referring to some other emperor, then please pardon me and ignore this paragraph.) since the Roman Empire then had already grown tired of persecuting the Christians who kept on proliferating despite the large number of persecutions. The catalyst, however, was when Constantine allegedly saw a cross in the sky, and that he thought this was a message saying that Christianity is the only true religion, at least to him. He then won the battle that made him emperor after he saw that vision, and then issued the Milan Edict, which tolerated Christianity as a belief. This would then lead to the Law of Thessalonica, proclaiming Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.



guy_faukes said:


> But, I've come to realize is that under the right conditions, we are all capable of evil.



A man whose name I have forgotten had said this passage: "I am not surprised to see men do evil, I am surprised to see them not ashamed."


----------



## Custard (Mar 5, 2011)

hmmmmm...... maybe I gave the wrong impression? I (please note the I because not everyone is like me in this regard) am a liberal Muslim, I supported Tasir and the Christan minister in the regard of the law but I don't like the guy because he was corrupt, i never said that I didn't support him.

I know a lot of people who don't like me for that but i don't care. You just have to be careful about what statements you make. Its just that people are not that tolerant about a person burning the Quran, Christians had their period of fanaticism in the 1600' now its our time but eventually it will just be another chapter in our history books.

My dad also asked me to clarify the usage of this law. It is a very rare occurrence that the law has any real use, its mostly like this...... a guy lives alone in a village and owns a small piece of land. Another person gathers 5 or 6 people and they all say that the person has disrespected the holy prophet. Now of course no one sticks up for the guy and he is sentenced to death. After he is dead the people divide his land among themselves (no one will stop them). Really speaking why should any body bother to disrespect the prophet, people here are too lazy to do anything.


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> Incorrect. It was thrust upon us (I'm assuming you're referring to Constantine. If you're referring to some other emperor, then please pardon me and ignore this paragraph.) since the Roman Empire then had already grown tired of persecuting the Christians who kept on proliferating despite the large number of persecutions. The catalyst, however, was when Constantine allegedly saw a cross in the sky, and that he thought this was a message saying that Christianity is the only true religion, at least to him. He then won the battle that made him emperor after he saw that vision, and then issued the Milan Edict, which tolerated Christianity as a belief. This would then lead to the Law of Thessalonica, proclaiming Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire.


 
This is a good article explaining what I mean in historic terms: The Development of Christianity in Early England


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 5, 2011)

Nick said:


> This is a good article explaining what I mean in historic terms: The Development of Christianity in Early England


 
Thanks for the article, Nick. It is a good read.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

A religion of peace? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with  nonbelievers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and  fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do  not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them  to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

_"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)_ 
_
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)_

_"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

__"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

__"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

__"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

__"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)_


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> A religion of peace? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with  nonbelievers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and  fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do  not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them  to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
> 
> _"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)_
> _
> ...


 
Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women . . . "

Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."

Deuteronomy 13:15 "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly . . . "

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death . . . "

Exodus 32:27 ". . . Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

Exodus 31:15 " . . . whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Deut 21:21 "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die . . . "

 - Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

There are countless others. Ones I can't reference, too, like "Thou shalnt not suffer a witch to live".


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

All old testament Nick. The Bible makes it plain that the new testament supersedes the old, unlike the Koran.


----------



## Custard (Mar 5, 2011)

okay so I am holding the Quran right now. I have surah 2: ayat 190 in front of me. the translation is not complete "And kill them wherever you find them and turn them out from where they have turned you out.Al-fitnah (this word means "to disbelieve after one has believed in Allah or a trail or a calamity or an affliction") is worse than killing. Fight not with them at Masjid-Al-Haram (makkah) unless they fight you there. but if they attack you kill them. such is the recompense of unbelievers" now we also need to remember that the holy prophet killed only 4 people when he conquered Makkah and released all of the unbelievers captured in previous battle after they taught 10 people how to read and write. 

 now on to the second COMPLETE verse "Jihad is ordained for you though you may dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know". Here nor does Allah say that you can do jihad whenever or how ever you want.

now onto the third, it actually ayat number 104 "and don't be weak in the pursuit of your enemy; if you are suffering (hardships) then surely they (too) are suffering (hardships) as you are suffering, but you have a hope from Allah (paradise) that for which they hope not; and Allah is ever all-knowing, All-wise" now here pursuit does not mean following the enemy after they have lost the battle, it means in an economic sense. 

Now i would continue with the rest of them but i don't have time to read and correct all of them so please look before you quote all right?


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

The fact of terrorism shows that there are those who follow Ditch's interpretation.  It's also true that there are moderates in the Muslim community.  The unfortunate reality is that moderates, by their nature, don't force their view as much as the fundamentalists do.  This could be said of most religions.  It's more difficult to discuss these issues on an internet forum in a reasonable manner than it is in real life.  There are pig-headed people who will only see things their own way, or who can only speak to condemn, everywhere.  They think they have special liberty on the internet.

A great example, to me, of how to express belief is given by St. Paul in his address to the Athenians on Mars Hill.  He opens up by praising them for their religiosity and quest for truth.  He then takes something that they have and uses it to share what he has found.  At no point does he condemn them for failing to share his vision.  The message is laid out for the Athenians to accept or reject with no condemnation and no attempt to force the issue.  Paul knew better than most that it wasn't his place to condemn.

This thread was started because of an outrageous killing by extremists.  There's really no argument about the incident or why it happened.  What matters is what follows.  If a more tolerant attitude comes about then this death won't have been a waste of life.  If it's another step to the Taliban controlling the region then we'll all lose out.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> All old testament Nick. *The Bible makes it plain that the new testament supersedes the old*, unlike the Koran.



This is true - at least to the extent the New Testament holds a place of prestige.

In the sciences you have type 1 error and type 2 error.

The worst - at least in terms of scale of potential damage - is type 2 error. Essentially Nick is accusing some of us of type 1 error. That is fine and I can live with that. It's his nation. One might even say the hierarchy of the Catholic Church committed type 2 error by allowing so many pedophile priests to remain in its ranks.  I would have preferred the Church had originally committed type 1 error. The fallout would have been far less severe. Currently, the Church is considering increasing its potential type 1 error to protect against future pedophiles entering the priesthood. 

At the end of the day England, France, and Italy will almost certainly - by odds - erupt into mayhem as the numerically dominant Muslim population (even if led by a few - but all masses are) establishes Muslim law over their lands. That's not an attack on Islam. And I rather respect Muslim suicide bombers and other Muslim militants to a certain extent. At least they have something they believe in and are willing to die for. And I realize they are a small percentage of the Muslim world. Nonetheless, small numbers can still enjoy popular support among the people.


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

Baron said:


> The fact of terrorism shows that there are those who follow Ditch's interpretation.  It's also true that there are moderates in the Muslim community.  The unfortunate reality is that moderates, by their nature, don't force their view as much as the fundamentalists do.  This could be said of most religions.  It's more difficult to discuss these issues on an internet forum in a reasonable manner than it is in real life.  There are pig-headed people who will only see things their own way, or who can only speak to condemn, everywhere.  They think they have special liberty on the internet.


 
Well said, Baron. Finally, I can wholly agree with you, though I'm guessing the second part is aimed partly towards me.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

The uneducated Muslims are led by mullahs to attack Christians, Jews and all non believers in their faith. I don't think it can be debated that Muslim extremists are the root of most, if not all  terrorist attacks worldwide. They believe that they are in a jihad and will automatically become martyrs with 70 virgins waiting for them if they die killing Christians. The Christian faith demands that we forgive, again, there can be no debate about which religion condones violence against non believers. The new testament reiterates time and time again that the law was changed to one of forgiveness. I don't think that anyone can quote Christ condoning violence.

Nor does it say it is alright to hit your wife, that it takes two women to equal one man's testimony in a court of law, or that you may take a married woman only if she is your slave. You can try to candy coat it all you want, this book condones violence against all who don't believe as they do, as well as their women and family. Muslim men kill their daughters for dating outside of the faith. This goes beyond religion into the realm of insanity.


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> I don't think it can be debated that Muslim extremists are the root of most, if not all  terrorist attacks worldwide.


 It certainly can be debated.  It's about cause and effect.  The Irish were condemned for the terrorist acts of the IRA and the centuries of interference and abuse by the English conveniently ignored.

The USA and UK have been guilty of some atrocious acts in the name of establishing democratic freedom.   In reality they're serving no religious cause apart from Mammon.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

Baron said:


> It certainly can be debated.  It's about cause and effect.  The Irish were condemned for the terrorist acts of the IRA and the centuries of interference and abuse by the English conveniently ignored.
> 
> The USA and UK have been guilty of some atrocious acts in the name of establishing democratic freedom.   In reality they're serving no religious cause apart from Mammon.



Yes, but in the totality of the current world situation I think that I'm safe saying that _*the attacks now*_ are all being carried out by Muslim extremists. One or two examples of others engaging in (unprovoked?) attacks cannot compare to the war that Islam has declared on the rest of the world.

I am a simple man, I had to quit school in the ninth grade to feed my mother, sister and myself so I will admit that my education is seriously lacking. But I can read the wind, I know when to move and I know when to be still. I know when to pull the trigger and won't hesitate to do so. I also know when someone is whizzing on my boots and trying to convince me that it is a thunderstorm. The current version of Islam is not a religion of peace.


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Yes, but in the totality of the current world situation I think that I'm safe saying that _*the attacks now*_ are all being carried out by Muslim extremists. One or two examples of others engaging in (unprovoked?) attacks cannot compare to the war that Islam has declared on the rest of the world.
> 
> I am a simple man, I had to quit school in the ninth grade to feed my mother, sister and myself so I will admit that my education is seriously lacking. But I can read the wind, I know when to move and I know when to be still. I know when to pull the trigger and won't hesitate to do so. I also know when someone is whizzing on my boots and trying to convince me that it is a thunderstorm. The current version of Islam is not a religion of peace.


 
I'm not trying to put forward an argument in defense of Islam but pointing out that Western interference in the Middle East fuels the flames and makes many of those terrorists feel justified in their acts.  It's foolish to think that they would want Western values imposed on them any more than people in the West want to see Muslim values imposed.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

Still, we would not seek them out to kill them if they would just leave us alone, right? Who is provoking this war? Who has been killing Jews for years now? America is a newcomer into this conflict.

To strike out at civilian targets is chickenshit in my opinion. When I want to kill a snake, I cut off it's head. I long for the days when men lined up and went to battle for their beliefs, instead of sending women and kids into a subway with dynamite strapped to their bodies. A war like this is hard to win, when mosques, schools and hospitals are used as headquarters for warriors. Human shields are the mark of cowards. I would gladly invite the entire population of Muslim warriors into the swamps of Louisiana for a final showdown. The Cajuns would be eating crawfish and drinking beer within one week while gladly sending them to meet their maker within one week.

Stand up and fight, draw a line in the sand. Don't hide behind women and children and kill the innocents. I count all of their tactics as cowardly. They are _*so insecure about their women*_, this is very telling about their very character. _*The way that a man treats his wife tells you everything about him. *_They consider American women as sluts, but drool and chase them at every opportunity. They demand that their wives walk three steps behind them and cover every part of their body least another man see their assets. Talk about insecurity. Call me the redneck that I am, but everything about this belief raises my quills.

Pardon my honesty, but I see them as insane cockroaches that need to be exterminated. A man needs to protect his home and family. They have attacked us. They will never stop. The choice is clear, kill them or they will kill us.


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Still, we would not seek them out to kill them if they would just leave us alone, right? Who is provoking this war? Who has been killing Jews for years now? America is a newcomer into this conflict.
> 
> To strike out at civilian targets is chickenshit in my opinion. When I want to kill a snake, I cut off it's head. I long for the days when men lined up and went to battle for their beliefs, instead of sending women and kids into a subway with dynamite strapped to their bodies. A war like this is hard to win, when mosques, schools and hospitals are used as headquarters for warriors. Human shields are the mark of cowards. I would gladly invite the entire population of Muslim warriors into the swamps of Louisiana for a final showdown. The Cajuns would be eating crawfish and drinking beer within one week while gladly sending them to meet their maker within one week.
> 
> ...


 
You've been speaking of the New Testament so perhaps you could provide scriptural references that would support this kind of attitude from someone who professes Christ?

I suppose that bombing women and children by the US and UK is heroic?

One of the Major differences between Old and New Testament ideology is that the Old Testament deals with people en masse, as a nation, and the New deals with individuals in terms of relationship.  The same should apply in our attitude to the perceived threat of Islam.  Preaching hatred against, and slaughter of, Muslims is the last thing that we should be doing.  Dealing with specific issues is another matter but not by advocating hatred.

The Christian message took Rome without violence but the violent took the message and corrupted it for political ends.  Be sure that you're not unwittingly falling into the same trap.


----------



## Custard (Mar 5, 2011)

what the hell are you talking about (Addressing ditch only after this, take these views more generally as views by the general population, not me)? the last time i saw any one wearing a burqa here was 6 monts ago and that too was a scarf. There is barely any woman that wears a burqa because she is forced to wear it (with the exception of saudi arabia), ITS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE EDUCATED. if you keep looking at afghanistan then why dont you talk about africa where women have to do that curcumference thing, its hedious but have i ever seen anybody speak up against it in a scale like covering up not onec in my life.

okay now I am a conservatist in this conversation. what the hell do you think you are doing in afghanistan? acting heroes? do you have any idea how many people died in those attacks? innocent people? not just that have you seen what happens to people in guatamalla bay? or in the american run prisons? sure the attck on 9/11 was wrong no one said anything about that but killing does not justify more killing and in this case severl times more.

how a man treats his wife? have you never seen or heard about domestic voilence in america? what about racism in america? mobs led by mullahs? are you crazy? the only namaz i read with a full heart is the friday prayer and the last time anybody i know listend to a mullah was when the guy came over for lunch. Do you think that most of the muslims are like the taliban? if they were then you would have lost every war here a long time ago. every resourse you get in afghanistan comes through pakistan. do you have any idea how to fight muslims? for every one that you kill there are 20 more to replace him. they crank out childern like big macs over in afghanistan.

Dont hide behind women and childern? I dont even want to talk about this part, the people that join the taliban dont have wives or childern or siblings.

exterminating Jews? they are occupiing palistine land, it something like the red indians (just imagine that they had numbers) coming back to America and saying that becauise their ancestors lived here 500 years ago they own these lands and so the white people should go back to europe.


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Pardon my honesty, but I see them as insane cockroaches that need to be exterminated. A man needs to protect his home and family. They have attacked us. They will never stop. The choice is clear, kill them or they will kill us.



As a self-professed practising Christian, I would expect a little bit more humility and sympathy from you. I saw a programme recently on TV that - for once - took a sympathetic view of many of the Taliban. Reporters were sent into the mountainsides of many Taliban fortresses and 'barracks'. They even managed to speak to a few children from outlying villages, and some of the younger Taliban warriors that managed to escape. They said they were forced with beheading to fight, and were told their families would be killed. 

This doesn't account for all the cases, but it's MUCH more common that we're made to believe in the media. If you looked at what so many of the soldiers are doing there, it's worth it. Some are the trigger-happy idiots the likes of WikiLeaks try to impose, but many work hard with villages being held hostage often by the Taliban to gain their support, and to help educate their children properly, and peacefully. The Islamic practitioners there were very happy to take in the soldiers peacefully. They did not want to immediately kill the the Christian-born Western soldiers.

See both sides of the conflict, Ditch, and you will find that your idealisms will be better suited towards a more peaceful, sympathetic approach to this war that I'm sure the Biblical Christ would take.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

the last time i saw any one wearing a burqa here was 6 monts ago and  that too was a scarf. There is barely any woman that wears a burqa  because she is forced to wear it (with the exception of saudi arabia),

I'd bet that women in that area would beg to differ. That is, if they were allowed to speak.

what the hell do you think you are doing in afghanistan?  

Keeping them from coming here. Ever time Abdul sticks his head up, a U.S. Marine tags it off.  We haven't been attacked since 9/11. They are too busy ducking and running.

do you have any idea how many people died in those attacks? innocent people?


Yes, about 3,000 Americans.


how a man treats his wife?

Yes, the Koran says to beat her. Find that in the Bible.

for every one that you kill there are 20 more to replace him.

Yes and there are a lot of red blooded Americans that are willing and able to cap them and stop their violence.

are you crazy? 


No, but I think that you are in a serious sense of denial if not crazy or just ignorant. Anyone can hurl personal insults. It doesn't make you right.

Dont hide behind women and childern? I dont even want to talk about this part,

I don't, that's what they do, as has been evidenced.

See both sides of the conflict, Ditch, and you will find that your  idealisms will be better suited towards a more peaceful, sympathetic  approach to this war that I'm sure the Biblical Christ would take. 						

Yes, a peaceful, sympathetic approach while they carve the heads off a journalist just trying to do his job. Jellyfish such as yourself will be the downfall of mankind if strong men would not let them succumb to tyranny..


----------



## Ditch (Mar 5, 2011)

Sleep safe in your bed tonight. Men are willing to die so that it may be so. You can't reason with the unreasonable.


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

This thread is getting out of hand.  Please keep discussion reasonable or do not post.


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Yes, a peaceful, sympathetic approach while they carve the heads off a journalist just trying to do his job. Jellyfish such as yourself will be the downfall of mankind if strong men would not let them succumb to tyranny..


 
Support brainless violence all you like, but stop pretending you're a devout follower of the New Testament if you decide to, because you're simply not. Would you be the likes of the shamed few soldiers in Afghanistan who are happy to fire on the innocent civilians? Would you immediately assume them of utmost evil because they worship the Qur'an and are in that particular country?


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2011)

Ditch said:


> You can't reason with the unreasonable.


 
Oh, the irony.

The Taliban had no route to come over here and attack and kill us all, except in the very few that can use the immigration system for terrorist strikes. Do you honestly think we're in Afghanistan because our country was in mortal danger?


----------



## Baron (Mar 5, 2011)

No more warnings.  

Violence begets violence, those who live by the sword perish by the sword and those who ignore staff learn about infractions.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 5, 2011)

*Off topic for a second.*



Ditch said:


> *I am a simple man, I had to quit school in the ninth grade to feed my mother, sister and myself so I will admit that my education is seriously lacking.* But I can read the wind, I know when to move and I know when to be still. I know when to pull the trigger and won't hesitate to do so. I also know when someone is whizzing on my boots and trying to convince me that it is a thunderstorm. The current version of Islam is not a religion of peace.



You've mentioned this in various ways a number of times since you've been on this board. I don't know if someone attacked you in the past for not having a degree from college or not? Maybe it's the dynamics on internet discussion boards where inevitably one encounters more people with college degrees - or in college - than one does in you're typical middle-class or lower-middle-class environments?

I used to be bothered by the same as what seems to bother you. But now into my junior year of college I realize the concern was all perception. I've read a number of undergraduate students papers and trust me when I tell you this that you write better than most of them. My own grammatical ability is nothing spectacular. And to be honest my ability at spelling is probably worse than some in elementary schools. Spell check saves me and conveniently gives the illusion of me being something I'm not entirely.




There are different levels of learning. Undergraduate education is in many ways just an extension the regurgitation style of learning taught in high school. The advanced undergraduate courses expect more out of you, more critical thought, more willingness to "teach yourself." 

But graduate level education is a higher level of learning. This encompasses teaching others and or conducting research. 

I'm saying all of that to say this: having a bachelor degree basically shows a person has completed a minimum requirement in one area of academics. That's all. Some degrees are more challenging to acquire than others also. And some universities are more competitive to go through than others. The gap between myself and someone with a Ph.D. in mathematics is huge. :lol: Trust me, you and I closer together in that distance than I am with that Ph.D.

But I think we need to be humble and respect the degrees people have especially for those that have advanced and professional degrees.

I converse online with a young mulatto cat that's European, formerly in his nations special forces, has 3 degrees and one of which is a master's, and he's considering working on a second master degree. He's married and has children. I'm so far away from that cat it isn't even funny. :lol:

Look at this cat, see how many degrees he has, I doubt anyone on this website matches him. Pierre Lecomte du Noüy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ultimately the education mean (average) of the world is small. Some are even crippled with illiteracy. If one can read they are at least given that one special blessing. The former President of Brazil - Lula - was criticized by the upper-classes in Brazil because his Portuguese was broken I'm told. It's even rumored he could not read. He only had a 7th grade education. 

But there is another Brazilian that I greatly admire. I read an English print of her biography. I forget the name of the book and can't quite remember her name. I want to say Marina. I'll find out. At any rate.... she hails from the forests of Brazil and had to work as a child to help feed her family. She was illiterate up until the age of 13 I think. The woman know has a Ph.D. if I remember correctly. :shock:


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 5, 2011)

Addendum to post #66.

Here's the book. You can google more info on her online. I thought I recalled reading in this book about her that she had earned her Ph.D. :scratch: Sources online don't seem to suggest that. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. Nonetheless, she's bada**. https://www.feministpress.org/books/ziporah-hildebrant/marina-silva

(The former female President of Chile has a jaw dropping resume/biography too)


----------



## caelum (Mar 5, 2011)

I think the image of Islam is distorted by extremist groups like the Taliban and Hezbollah.  Something like 10% of Muslims have the jihadi, death to the west beliefs, which is comparable to the size of extremist sects in most religions (lol, sects).  Rounding all Muslims into that same lot is no better than Muslim extremists calling all westerners and Christians infidels.  It's just as fallacious and discriminatory.

There's been quite a disturbing rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in the US.  I was just listening to the BBC radio and how a Muslim gathering was protested (think it was in California), so in a nutshell, hundreds of Americans gathered outside the building and shouted slurs at the Muslims as they arrived.  That's pretty disgusting.  Admittedly they didn't gun down an imam in his car, but this didn't take place in an unstable middle-eastern country.


----------



## Custard (Mar 6, 2011)

Why am i even bothering you just skipped all of the parts that made sense, ahh but forget all that we have a saying here that means "demons that learn by kicking will never listen when you talk to them". A moment of silence for the departed souls of Tasir and Shebaz, but only for the moment that they raised their voice did they seem any where close to human beings that cared about their country.


----------



## Sam (Mar 6, 2011)

Ditch said:


> Still, we would not seek them out to kill them if they would just leave us alone, right? Who is provoking this war? Who has been killing Jews for years now? America is a newcomer into this conflict.
> 
> To strike out at civilian targets is chickenshit in my opinion. When I want to kill a snake, I cut off it's head. I long for the days when men lined up and went to battle for their beliefs, instead of sending women and kids into a subway with dynamite strapped to their bodies. A war like this is hard to win, when mosques, schools and hospitals are used as headquarters for warriors. Human shields are the mark of cowards. I would gladly invite the entire population of Muslim warriors into the swamps of Louisiana for a final showdown. The Cajuns would be eating crawfish and drinking beer within one week while gladly sending them to meet their maker within one week.
> 
> ...



I'm Irish. Born and bred and as patriotic as any American who thinks they know what patriotism is. You have another thread, Ditch, where you asked people about the scariest thing they've ever gone through. Well consider waking up to a half-dozen soldiers storming into your house, pointing guns at you, and dragging you from your bed because they think your father is an informant for the IRA. Now consider what that would be like at eleven years of age. If we followed your line of reasoning I, and every other Republican, would be killed because people feared we were IRA. That's xenophobia, and that's exactly what you're advocating. You're content to kill nine innocent people as long as you get one terrorist. That's the kind of inane knee-jerk reaction which has the world in the state it's in.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 6, 2011)

> I long for the days when men lined up and went to battle for their beliefs,


The Anglo Saxons with axes felt that way about the Normans with their 'pesky little arrows'. The truth is that the face of war is ever changing to try and get one step ahead, war among the people instead of on a battlefield is merely the latest development coming from Mao seeing the soldier as 'a fish swimming in the sea of the people'.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 6, 2011)

Baron said:


> It's also true that there are moderates in the Muslim community.  The unfortunate reality is that moderates, by their nature, don't force their view as much as the fundamentalists do.  This could be said of most religions.  It's more difficult to discuss these issues on an internet forum in a reasonable manner than it is in real life.  There are pig-headed people who will only see things their own way, or who can only speak to condemn, everywhere.


 
On this I couldn't agree more.

Just to share what's on my mind regarding this issue:

The thing is, there are many people who misinterpret, or rather, "fallaciously interpret," these words, and thats what makes the Radicals being called as such - Radicals. I am reminded of my Logic professor when he was discussing fallacies, particularly on Hasty Generalizations. His statement was simple: "Does one sentence make a book? Does one trait make a person? Does one material make an object? No."

Here are some verses I managed to search on the Qu'ran and the Bible. Don't they count any merit?

In the Qu'ran:

"God does not forbid you, as regards those who do not make war against you on account of your Religion, to be kindly to your enemies, and act towards them with equity. God surely loves the equitable." Sura 60:8

"And if your enemies incline to peace, incline to it also, and put your trust in God. Surely, He is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing." - Sura 8:61

"Cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands, but do good; surely Allah loves the doers of Good." - Sura 2:195

In the Bible:

"Listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you." - 2 Corinthians 13:11

"Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." - Colossians 3:12

"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness." - Galatians 5:22

These verses, in my humble opinion, cannot be any clearer. They talk about peace, so much so that they even instruct it to their followers. How then, can anyone say that Islam, or Christianity for that matter, is not a religion of peace well and in fact they teach it in various points of their books? Or are these words nothing but hollow sentences?

David Rodier couldn't have said it any better: "If people are intent on using religion to motivate violence, they'll find an excuse there no matter what the actual text says."


----------



## Ditch (Mar 6, 2011)

You're content to kill nine innocent people as long as you get one  terrorist. That's the kind of inane knee-jerk reaction which has the  world in the state it's in.

I don't see where I ever condoned the killing of any innocent people to get one terrorist. America is using some of the most precise ordinance ever made to pinpoint insurgent strongholds and _*avoid killing innocent civilians*_. They take fire from a particular house then can't shoot when the enemy drops their weapons and runs _*because they are unarmed, *_they know this and take advantage of it. 

Support brainless violence all you like, but stop pretending you're a  devout follower of the New Testament if you decide to, because you're  simply not.

I don't see a soldier joining the service and going to war _*after we were attacked *_as brainless violence. I see it as the soldiers do, as patriotism to our country. I'm not pretending to be a devout follower of the new testament, I am a Christian with my flaws like all others. Fighting in a war or supporting our troops who are fighting in the war doesn't make me any less of a Christian.

The Taliban had no route to come over here and attack and kill us all,  except in the very few that can use the immigration system for terrorist  strikes. 

How many does it take? How many did it take to kill 3,000 American civilians in the World Trade Center? This was a civilian target, everyday mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. This was not a military target. It's our way of life that they hate.


Do you honestly think we're in Afghanistan because our country  was in mortal danger?                         

I'd call having to jump a hundred stories out of a building to keep from burning a slow death pretty mortal danger. Besides the two attacks on the World Trade Center, the bombing of the Cole and numerous other high profile attacks, they have been attacking us for years. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I can't support fighting back. Here's a list for you..http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

 
_
_​


----------



## Ditch (Mar 6, 2011)

There's been quite a disturbing rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in the US. I was just listening to the BBC radio and how a Muslim gathering was  protested (think it was in California), so in a nutshell, hundreds of  Americans gathered outside the building and shouted slurs at the Muslims  as they arrived.  That's pretty disgusting.  

I can't imagine why there is a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment. just look at a protest over there, butcher, behead, slay...


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Ditch said:


> I don't see where I ever condoned the killing of any innocent people to get one terrorist. America is using some of the most precise ordinance ever made to pinpoint insurgent strongholds and avoid killing innocent civilians.



According to our own 9/11 commision, there was “no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States."

How many Iraqi citizens have been killed -- over 100,000? And how many terrorists were killed that had anything to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack on the United States -- zero?


----------



## Ditch (Mar 6, 2011)

JosephB said:


> According to our own 9/11 commision, there was “no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States."
> 
> How many Iraqi citizens have been killed -- over 100,000? And how many terrorists were killed that had anything to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist attack on the United States -- zero?


 

So you are saying that Osama Bin Laden was not behind the 9/11 attacks? 

Civilians die during a time of war. We are not carpet bombing villages nor attacking civilian targets. The fact that an insurgent who picks up a gun and fires on American troops or plants an IED had nothing to do with 9/11 does not excuse him. He is still intent on killing us. We have not been attacked since we went on the offensive, that in itself should say something. I'd much rather take the war to them than to fight it on our own soil. We have captured or killed a lot of people who are intent on doing America harm, Gitmo is full of them. 

In the years since 2005, _*the mounting insurgency has resulted in more  direct civilian deaths being caused each year by insurgent actions than  by coalition military action.*_ Overall, the number of direct civilian  casualties that have been attributed to insurgent forces by the available estimates remains more than the number that have been attributed to U.S.-led airstrikes and groundfire since 2006.  Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> These verses, in my humble opinion, cannot be any clearer. They talk about peace, so much so that they even instruct it to their followers. How then, can anyone say that Islam, or Christianity for that matter, is not a religion of peace well and in fact they teach it in various points of their books? Or are these words nothing but hollow sentences?



Communism and capitalism can be called routes to peace too. Both fall under the social sciences. However, the two may have different routes to peace.

The virtue of the Muslim world at large is that they believe. And in doing so they look reality in the face. They are not ashamed to explain to you why they do not have the liberties of the West. The problem with most of the modern Christian West is that I a non-practicing Catholic, one of her greater sinners, believe more than the professing Christians do.

Ecumenism is fine so long as it seeks an authentic respect for what we all share in common and coming to understand each other better. But it becomes a heresy when it seeks to make Mohammad Christ. At some point the Christian man is called to grab his balls and stand his ground on the side of the crucified Christ he claims his fidelity and debt to. 

What was that saying in the movie Highlander.... "In the end there can only be one [begotten]"? 

I come from the people of Charles "the Hammer" Martel. And you come from the people of the Eskrimadors - Water Buffalo Fighters. There is nothing you need fear.

_Lo, there do I see my Father.._
_ Lo, there do I see my Mother_
_ And my Sisters and my Brothers.._
_ Lo, there do I see the line_
_ Of my people back to the beginning.._
_ Thay do bid me to take my place among them.._
_ In the Halls of Valhalla,_
_ Where the Brave may live forever._



YouTube - 13th warrior prayer

But the reminder not to target and kill innocent men, women, and children coming from you, Baron, Sam, and others is righteous and godly. The "terrorist" (whether they are or not) should be handled by law enforcement probably. There is some truth in the U.S. and Europe in creating some of these problem from their long interference in the Middle East and Islamic worlds. But I not well read and not learned on that whole issue and history, so, I can't speak more on it. ​


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

You notice none of them cats run up into the "hood." You notice that.

And it's not just because they've got no beef with us - and we none with them - like they do with American and European bankers etc....

But it's also because they know the "hood" ain't no place for heroes and they respect our "gangsta." :lol:

YouTube - The Heavy - Short Change Hero (Faster)

When - and it will happen - Europe is overthrown by superior numbers of Muslims that establish Islamic law in throughout their European nations (it won't happen when they're the minority). It won't happen because I was the "bad guy" or European liberals the "good guy." It will happen because the Europeans failed to respect their (Muslims) "gangsta." That's Darwinian, and that's life.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Ditch said:


> So you are saying that Osama Bin Laden was not behind the 9/11 attacks?



Go back and read what I said more carefully. I’m talking about Iraq. Now, consider what President Bush had to say about it:

_"We know he's [Saddam Hussein] got ties with Al Qaeda," Bush said during an election rally in New Hampshire. "A nightmare scenario, of course, is that he becomes the arsenal for a terrorist network, where they could attack America and he'd leave no fingerprints behind. He is a problem."_

Of course, this, and everything else that was claimed to try and connect Hussein and Al Quada, turned out to be nonsense. Yet it was given as a reason to justify our invasion of Iraq.



Ditch said:


> Civilians die during a time of war. We are not carpet bombing villages nor attacking civilian targets. The fact that an insurgent who picks up a gun and fires on American troops or plants an IED had nothing to do with 9/11 does not excuse him. He is still intent on killing us. We have not been attacked since we went on the offensive, that in itself should say something. I'd much rather take the war to them than to fight it on our own soil. We have captured or killed a lot of people who are intent on doing America harm, Gitmo is full of them.



    As far are Iraq goes, there was no “war to take to them.” And guess, what? If you’re not there in the first place, no one is going to fire on you or try to kill you. Pretty simple.

Every single Iraqi death that has come at the hands of the U.S. -- non-combatants, women and children, insurgents — not one is justified for the reasons given by the Bush administration.



Ditch said:


> I don't see where I ever condoned the killing of any innocent people to get one terrorist.



  And yet, in Iraq, that’s precisely what we’ve done, thousands of times over.

PS -- that's not quite right, seeing as how in all probability, we haven't killed any terrorists that had any connection to Al Qaeda, 9/ll or any other attacks on the US prior to the invasion.


----------



## Ditch (Mar 6, 2011)

It's really quite simple Joseph. How many times would you allow someone to attack your home and family before you went over there and did something about it? You said, "If your not there in the first place, no one is going to fire on you or try to kill you."

We tried that, the first attack on the World Trade Center, we were not there, yet they were trying to kill us. The second attack on the world Trade Center, we were not there, but they attacked and killed thousands of our fellow countrymen. Just how long would you sit on your hands and let this go on before you went and did something about it? I'll bet the families of the victims in New York have a different perspective.

I also pointed out that the insurgents themselves are responsible for more killing of civilians than the combined Allied forces, but you seem content to point the finger of blame at America. We didn't start this war, they did. It's hard to tell civilians from combatants when they don't wear a uniform and attack from all sides. There are no front lines unless you want to consider that New York was once the front lines when they brought this killing to us. I never heard you mention the three thousand who died here or express any sympathy for them.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 6, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> The virtue of the Muslim world at large is that they believe.



They believe in what, exactly? Are you attesting that the "Muslim world at large" believe in the teachings of the Radicals that violent, or lower Jihad, is the way to cleanse their land of the infidels? If not, then please ignore my succeeding reply, and I ask for an apology. 

But should that be indeed the case, then I beg to differ. The following are the results coming from 2007 book entitled "Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think" written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, with the research supervised by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Here are the numbers:

93% of Muslims worldwide attest to be "moderates" - that is, they believe in peace rather than wage war with the 'infidels.'

94% of Muslims in Egypt believe in having a constitution that upholds freedom in political, social, economic and religious issues of today. So do 90% of Muslims in Indonesia, 89% in Iran, 93% in Turkey.

90% of Muslims in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey and Lebanon believe of equal rights, whether in men or women.

And here's the eye-squinting part: Only 7% of Muslims attest that terrorism against the United States and its allies is justified.

Here are some more numbers, these coming from the M15 studies of Muslims from 2002-2008, the report entitled "Young Muslims and Extremism."

85% of British Muslims regard terrorist attacks as unjustified.

87% of British Muslims say they are completely loyal to Britain.

And the last batch, this time coming from the Pew Research Center of America, entitled "Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mainstream."

78% of American Muslims fully reject Islamic Extremism.

67% of American Muslims think that terrorist attacks on US and its allies are unfavorable.

Only 7% held favorable views to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

I have to admit, these are not always 100% accurate, but to have the same response curve in three independent and different researches, it sounds more accurate than inaccurate, at least to me.

Having said that, can I agree, in good faith, in the argument that the "Muslim world at large" believes in Radicalist Jihad? No.



Writ-with-Hand said:


> Ecumenism is fine so long as it seeks an authentic respect for what we all share in common and coming to understand each other better. But it becomes a heresy when it seeks to make Mohammad Christ.



I have no issue whatsoever if the other person seeks to make Mohammad Christ. He is entitled to his belief, and I am entitled to mine. I believe this is termed as respect.



Writ-with-Hand said:


> At some point the Christian man is called to grab his balls and stand his ground on the side of the crucified Christ he claims his fidelity and debt to.



True. I totally agree with you on this point, but should that come, then I believe it should not lead to any war. We can proclaim, yes, but this doesn't mean that those who proclaim otherwise automatically become our enemies. Besides, if both religions do lead to peace, as you say in reference to communism and capitalism, then a war and a defense of faiths becomes less necessary, don't you think?



Writ-with-Hand said:


> The "terrorist" (whether they are or not) should be handled by law enforcement probably.



This, I unequivocally support. This, I believe, is no longer a matter of religion, but a matter of safeguarding basic human rights, specifically the right to life. However, this should not warrant the US or any other allied nation to haphazardly attack any country. They should accurately confirm their intel, and strike when they are certain that the perpetrators are right where they want them. I'm sure the US and the allies are doing this job the best they can.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Ditch said:


> It's really quite simple Joseph. How many times would you allow someone to attack your home and family before you went over there and did something about it?



If this is an analogy to our invasion of Iraq, I guess the answer is, zero times. I'd just go over there and do "something" for no good reason.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> They believe in what, exactly? Are you attesting that the "Muslim world at large" believe in the teachings of the Radicals that violent, or lower Jihad, is the way to cleanse their land of the infidels? If not, then please ignore my succeeding reply, and I ask for an apology.



I think you have been missing my point. I was not suggesting the majority of Muslims world wide believe or support anything "radical," but then that begs the question of what "radical" is. 

Yes, I believe the majority of Muslims support lesser jihad (and greater jihad). But Muslims are instructed in their faith - to my understanding - to lie and accept infidels so long as Muslims remain the minority or in no position to overthrow that status quo.

One can ignore the elephant in the room. Some Catholics like to deny the role of Mary in Catholicism to appease others. I don't and won't. Between Catholics and Protestants Mary and the Pope are that elephant in the room. Likewise, Christianity and Islam share different concepts of *martyrdom* and ignoring that elephant neither changes truth nor disposes one to being "a good person." And I don't say that as a personal attack on you, so, don't misunderstand it that way. I'm just pointing out what I believe is true ethically and logically.



> But should that be indeed the case, then I beg to differ. The following are the results coming from 2007 book entitled "Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think" written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, with the research supervised by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. Here are the numbers:
> 
> 93% of Muslims worldwide attest to be "moderates" - that is, they believe in peace rather than wage war with the 'infidels.'
> 
> ...


Egypt? Christians in Egypt are the equivalent of "negroes" in the U.S. South during the 1950's. If Muslims in the U.S. were treated in half the fashion Christians in Egypt are treated it would be considered an international outrage.

Okay, I know how racist Americans respond, so, I'm sure I could poll members of the KKK and neo-nazi's asking them if they believe in justice, fairness, and everyone respecting each others races and the results would equal that of a hippie from Berkley University. The questions need to be more probing and cut to the heart of the matter. Like can I draw an image of Mohammad and s___ on his character. Yes, I believe Muslims believe in lesser jihad because I accept Darwinian evolution and reality.  

And it's interesting your poll flatters Lebanon. The country of Lebanon used to be predominately Christian - largely Eastern Rite Catholics.

Here is Brigitte Gabriel that lived though your benevolent Lebanon when many Muslims began increasing their population within the country: 

1. YouTube - Brigitte Gabriel




> And here's the eye-squinting part: Only 7% of Muslims attest that terrorism against the United States and its allies is justified.
> 
> Here are some more numbers, these coming from the M15 studies of Muslims from 2002-2008, the report entitled "Young Muslims and Extremism."
> 
> ...


To a communist capitalism is "radical." I live in Milwaukee with a history of socialist mayors and Germans. Applying Darwinian evolution to any country I don't see how any country will remain capitalist if 90% of the people become communist. I don't see how any nation will remain Muslim or under Islamic law if 90% of the country becomes Catholic, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or atheist.

When most of Europe becomes Muslim it will follow the path of Lebanon. Not my opinion, just Darwinian fact.   

Unlike Europe the United States has few Muslims. And those Muslims - like Hindus - that are in the U.S. collectively have a higher educational mean than the general U.S. population. 

The day communist or Muslims become the majority in the U.S. is the day communism or Islamic law is established in the U.S.

And I don't suggest most Muslims support Al Qaida. That's not the point. Lesser jihad can come from merely blaspheming Mohammad. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton and a U.S. Army General publicly stated to the U.S. and world in so many words - "You can't pull the bulls*** on Muslims, and exercise freedom of speech by committing blasphemy, as we enjoy doing to Christians and Catholics in the U.S. and Europe." Bottom line. So, no Korans were burnt. You can burn a bible or the U.S. flag but you can't burn a Koran in the United States. Why? Lesser jihad, baby. And we all know it. I just have the balls to say it like a man. 




> I have no issue whatsoever if the other person seeks to make Mohammad Christ. He is entitled to his belief, and I am entitled to mine. I believe this is termed as respect.


No, you are misunderstanding me. One can not be a heretic if they are not a baptized Christian and have not denounced the faith. Muslims, Jews, and non-Christians are not heretics. 

A Christian falls into heresy when he or she raises Mohammad to the rank of Christ.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

Here you go, Fuhrer, you're Filipino Force Recon Marines have taken up machete fighting, and from my understanding because of their combat engagements with Muslim "terrorists" in the jungles of the Philippines.

Listen closely to the words of the songs. Take a deep breath and intake the pure Darwinism of it all. Makes a man feel alive, good, and animal like. "In the end there can be only one [begotten]" - _The Highlander 

_
Documentary/song: YouTube - Kali Means To Scrape


Pekiti-Tirsia Kali: Filipino Centennial / Mastery Training Camp


----------



## Ditch (Mar 6, 2011)

JosephB said:


> If this is an analogy to our invasion of Iraq, I guess the answer is, zero times. I'd just go over there and do "something" for no good reason.



This thread has not been about Iraq, but Muslim extremists. We would have never been in Iraq had not Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait. they asked for our intervention and we gave it along with a lot of other nations. The balance of the entire region was at stake. Saddam fed people into plastic shredders, pushed them off of buildings while forcing their family to watch, gassed the Kurds and used torture and rape rooms against his own people.

They now have open elections. Granted, they are far from stable, but they are in a lot better shape than they were under his regime.  My question about how many times would you let your family be attacked was aimed at the Muslims who attacked us, as you full well know.

I also don't understand how people can say that every man who has ever marched off to war or those who support them is not a Christian. War is a necessary evil as long as tyrants try to rule the world.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 6, 2011)

LMAO!

Joe, are you really this bored?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Ditch said:


> This thread has not been about Iraq, but Muslim extremists.


 
  And one of the justifications given for our invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Queda. And they are…? 

  That’s right -- Muslim extremists.  



Ditch said:


> We would have never been in Iraq had not Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait. they asked for our intervention and we gave it along with a lot of other nations. The balance of the entire region was at stake.


 
  You’re referring to the _first_ Gulf war – which of course, had nothing to do with Muslim extremists. I would hope you realize that there have been two invasions.



Ditch said:


> Saddam fed people into plastic shredders, pushed them off of buildings while forcing their family to watch, gassed the Kurds and used torture and rape rooms against his own people.


 
  If all that was such a great concern to us, we should have taken Saddam out during the first Gulf war. We didn’t however, because the other nations in the coalition didn’t want us to – and we wanted their support. So we backed off and left Saddam in power. So much for the Iraqi people. The Kurds especially felt that we betrayed them. Oh, well. 



Ditch said:


> They now have open elections. Granted, they are far from stable, but they are in a lot better shape than they were under his regime.


 
  That may be true – for now. But sorry, that alone doesn’t justify the invasion – which we did under the pretense that it would make us safer. We really don’t know what the outcome will be, but there’s a very good chance that because of the Shiite majority, we might have created another safe-haven for Islamic extremism and a more hostile enemy than Saddam. That remains to be seen.



Ditch said:


> My question about how many times would you let your family be attacked was aimed at the Muslims who attacked us, as you full well know.


 
  My original post was about your contention that we don’t “condone the killing of any innocent people to get one terrorist.” But that’s just what we’ve done in Iraq. We’ve killed innocent people under the pretense – or at best -- the mistaken belief, that we were fighting Islamic terror. And that’s aside from any insurgents. Not a _single_ death of an innocent, non-combatant civilian is justifiable. Why isn’t it relevant to the OP when both the invasions of Afghanistan _and Iraq_ were justified as fighting the war on terror?

  And so, my answer to your question about my family being attacked still stands and makes perfect sense. You just can’t defend your position as is relates to Iraq. Pretty typical of the millions of gullible and ill-informed Americans who swallowed the Bush administration’s rational for the invasion hook, line and sinker.



Ditch said:


> I also don't understand how people can say that every man who has ever marched off to war or those who support them is not a Christian. War is a necessary evil as long as tyrants try to rule the world.



What the...???


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Leyline said:


> LMAO!
> 
> Joe, are you really this bored?



HA ha. No, just avoiding work and household chores.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 6, 2011)

JosephB said:


> HA ha. No, just avoiding work and household chores.


 
*shakes head sadly* Joe, if the vacuuming isn't done, the terrorists win. It may seem like a harmless break to you, but studies prove (conclusively) that children raised in homes with non-vacuumed floor areas are 750% more likely to one day strap on a home-made bomb and slaughter innocent, angelic Christian folk like you see on TV. Not only that, but just leaving the trash in the can for _one extra day_ has been proven (conclusively) to transform previously good, Christian families into slovenly, smack-shooting, sexting, teenage-pregnant-getting, gas-huffing, liberal multi-culturists and abortionists. These are facts, Joe. You need to get your mind right. I recommend listening to some wholesome music like Marty Stuart, find a nice collection of Norman Rockwell paintings to pray to, and a couple of John Wayne flicks to lull you into decency again.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

You’re talking about women’s work. I meant to say chores – as in manly chores, like splitting rails, clearing brush and pouring concrete. Children who see their fathers vacuuming and emptying trashcans are 875% more likely to turn gay -– Mr. Statistics. But that John Wayne flick sounds good about now.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 6, 2011)

Well, _duh_. I was obviously advising you to soundly beat your wife until she got up off her (I hope) barefoot and pregnant butt and did her wifely duties. And you should have had them rails split and that concrete poured by  9am,son: afore the heat of the sun got too persnickety. I'm not even sure you deserve a John Wayne film.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Leyline said:


> Well, _duh_. I was obviously advising you to soundly beat your wife until she got up off her (I hope) barefoot and pregnant butt...



Pregnant??!!! *passes out*


----------



## Foxee (Mar 6, 2011)

Straying pretty far off-topic here, guys. Perhaps you might pick up this bantering conversation privately.



Leyline said:


> pregnant butt


 And an anatomy lesson might be in order.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 6, 2011)

Foxee said:


> Straying pretty far off-topic here, guys. Perhaps you might pick up this bantering conversation privately.



Yes ma'am.



Foxee said:


> And an anatomy lesson might be in order.



 Obviously, you never saw my wife’s butt when she was pregnant.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 6, 2011)

To the OP, anyone who would stick their necks out for moral good, fully acknowledging the consequences, until the very end should be recognized and honoured. 



Ditch said:


> Still, we would not seek them out to kill them if they would just leave us alone, right? Who is provoking this war? Who has been killing Jews for years now? America is a newcomer into this conflict.



It’s not that cut and dry. There has been meddling. They’re most likely pissed at how the US helped establish Israel (better or for worse) and been fuming over the resulting situation since. 



Ditch said:


> Stand up and fight, draw a line in the sand. Don't hide behind women and children and kill the innocents. I count all of their tactics as cowardly.



Unfortunately, insurgents realized that they cannot take the US on toe to toe and have established other “methods” of “fighting“. 



Ditch said:


> Keeping them from coming here. Ever time Abdul sticks his head up, a U.S. Marine tags it off. We haven't been attacked since 9/11. They are too busy ducking and running.



Well, it probably has more to do with the groping at airport terminals and Western counterinsurgency than the military action in the Middle East. 

If you look at it from a strategists point of view, I doubt the Taliban has to any more “attacking”. The quagmire the US has gotten into has done far more damage to itself economically than Bin Laden could’ve possibly hoped for. From a strategists point of view, Bin Laden offered up the perfect bait: the first blow to a macho nation with a bloated military bill. The US walked right into quagmire and has been struggling to reverse out of it ever since, without much success.

Heck, the way the US funnels money to mercenary forces in the Middle East basically means they are funding the Taliban to fight the Taliban. 



Ditch said:


> Yes and there are a lot of red blooded Americans that are willing and able to cap them and stop their violence.



And the circle of violence and hatred starts over anew. Yay!


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 6, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> Yes, I believe the majority of Muslims support lesser jihad (and greater jihad)... Yes, I believe Muslims believe in lesser jihad because I accept Darwinian evolution and reality.



And my numbers about majority of Muslims stating that they find the terrorist attacks "unfavorable" and that they disagree with Islamic extremism mean nothing.

And you do know the difference between lesser and greater Jihad, yes? Lesser Jihad is the waging of a violent war against non-Muslims, killing them in the name of Allah. Greater Jihad is the internal struggle of man, to rid himself off his sinful nature.



> But Muslims are instructed in their faith - to my understanding - to lie and accept infidels so long as Muslims remain the minority or in no position to overthrow that status quo.



Please, I ask of you, to give me that verse in the Qu'ran, and please have that verse be taken in context.



Writ-with-Hand said:


> Here you go, Fuhrer, you're Filipino Force Recon Marines have taken up machete fighting, and from my understanding because of their combat engagements with Muslim "terrorists" in the jungles of the Philippines.
> 
> Pekiti-Tirsia Kali: Filipino Centennial / Mastery Training Camp


 
Here the inside scoop: these bandits are being chased down because they have been bombing several points in the country for nothing, nor do they admit the blame for themselves, nor "for Allah." But it is found out that these are being done because the Muslims in Mindanao want Mindanao to become a totally different country. These are selfish motives that is not founded on any religious war, or Jihad. The spokesman for one of the rebel groups said it himself.

Now, the history of these bandits came from the time when the Japanese invade the Philippines. A group of men decided to overthrow the Japanese government. Now that the Japan era is gone, they still take arms, this time to make their Mindanao independent.

Having said these, can I say that I agree with you that the Philippines is reacting to a Jihad? No. The Philippines is responding to a criminal whose motive are not even Jihad, but simply to stray away from the Philippines. We actually did that, and announced a new region: Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. But they were not satisfied.

Compound this to the fact that the soldiers of the Philippine Army who are fighting these Muslim "terrorists" are in fact, Muslims as well. And that majority of the Muslims there don't agree with the mindset of the rebels in any perspective whatsoever. How do I know that? Muslims here are now migrating from the south to Luzon and Visayas, stating that they want to leave Mindanao because they want to have peace.

In finality, I don't see this as related to the topic at hand, for it involves not Jihad, nor religious issues, but simply war crimes. Haven't we agreed on that? Law enforcement has to do something, for this is not talking about religious issue, this is talking about safeguarding the basic rights of the people.

As a side note, the picture you posted came from a site that attests the way of Marines training with the machete. You do know that the machete, and the bolo, are our country's symbolic weapons, for these were the ones we used to fight against the Spaniards to free ourselves from their colony? The Military of our country our trained with this melee weapon to recognize that this weapon symbolizes the Filipino Revolution against the Spanish invaders and our battle for freedom. The article where you got the picture said it itself.

I would like to end with this quote from the historian Grergorio Zaide: "For the believer, no evidence is necessary; for the skeptic, no evidence is enough."

@ Writ-with-hand: And by the way, I would like to end the conversation here, not as a matter of rudeness, for surely that is not my intention, but because the staff are already advising us to do so. Should you want to reply to my post here, then please do send me a PM and I will gladly entertain you.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

Fuhrer, I will not respond to the bulk of your post. I think you are a well intended person. According to science I must accept there is some probability I am wrong.

I don't think I am.

In the end if we are speaking of secularism we must ask if s____ on an image of Christ causes lesser jihad among Christians, or if s_____ on an image of Mohammad causes lesser jihad among Muslims? In the latter case we know it does. Why will Europe burn? For a number of reasons. But one of which is because they didn't "respect the gangsta" of the Muslim civilization they brought in.

You don't need to be a brain surgeon to understand this. You need to accept Darwin.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Mar 6, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> I think you are a well intended person. According to science I must accept there is some probability I am wrong.
> 
> I don't think I am.


 
I rest my case. No further questions.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Mar 6, 2011)

^ I was gonna warn you Fuhrer that Writ's on a completely different wavelength of thought, hehe


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 6, 2011)

guy_faukes said:


> ^ I was gonna warn you Fuhrer that Writ's on a completely different wavelength of thought, hehe



But that's what makes Writ dangerous. Hehe! :cheers:

:-k I wouldn't sleep on my boy Sam though. He's built like the Rock YouTube - G&M DeAngelis - Goodbye My Friend (Faster). He may no longer bend his knee before the Madonna and The Only Begotten, but! The Queen of Heaven and Christ have away of bring all to them. Muslim, Protestant, or fallen away Catholic. 

But regardless, in the end, Sam and his kind of Celts, may allow _no religion_ and graciously accept the gentleman and lady-folks of Islam into their homelands. We thank them. 

But! I doubt Sam and his kindred like him will _just_ roll over and allow Islamic law be forced over their heads, if that were ever to occur.

It's in this kind of mix I expect a fight.  




But no matter what you do... Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, gay, straight, big booty, small booty, make sure you keep your pimpin up like Gekko. :lol:


----------



## Ditch (Mar 7, 2011)

You can spare me the history lesson Joseph, I have kept up with the situation. As I have pointed out, this thread is about Muslims killing Christians, not Iraq. Also as I have pointed out, the insurgents themselves have killed more civilians than the combined coalition forces. when you say "civilians" you have to consider their tactics. They will set up a mortar and begin lobbing rounds at our troops. with the new technology, we can trace the trajectory back to it's origin and place a high explosive round right back there. If they set up this mortar in the vacinity of civilians you then have collateral damage. Of course all they show are the coffins of the civilians who who standing there cheering them on with their "Allah Akbar." as in this video..

YouTube - Mortar Attack


----------



## Baron (Mar 7, 2011)

Writ-with-Hand said:


> But that's what makes Writ dangerous. Hehe! :cheers...


 
Are you sure that "dangerous" is the right word, Writ?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 7, 2011)

Ditch said:


> As I have pointed out, this thread is about Muslims killing Christians, not Iraq.



If you fail to see why our invasion of Iraq is pertinent to the OP, then you're simply not looking at the big picture.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Mar 7, 2011)

Baron said:


> Are you sure that "dangerous" is the right word, Writ?



Okay, dangerously slightly humorous. 

But back to the ummah. I know the Muslims of the UAE are doing something right. Like I've stated in the past on this board I have fond memories of Dubai and one or more UAE nations. Dubai especially was materially prosperous and had a clean, well ordered society with a peaceful, civilized population superior in a number of respects to secularized Milwaukee or Tijuana. And my short visit to Tijuana was the best partying time I've ever had in my life. 

What can be inferred from all of that? I wasn't shaken down by the Mexican cops, and non-religious Milwaukeens (like their counterparts in London and other UK cities I imagine) will split your head open before any of the ummah in Dubai will.

Personally, I don't take that to infer - from my joyous time in TJ - that Mexico is safe and you can cross any line with Mexico's finest. But hey! I'm crazy like that.

Actually, some of the nicest, most community oriented people, were White-Americans during the era of Jack Johnson. They were peaceful people like many in the Islamic East today. In both cases I'm sure any poll query the two if the support "justice" would show the vast majority of them did or do. Jack Johnson lest we forget was never lynched (lesser jihad/extra judicial punishment etc.) for dating and having sex with multiple white women. Although an All-American fatwa was pronounced on him by some few White-Americans. But it was only a _few_ White-Americans.

Frankly - and I mean this seriously - I would rather live in Muslim Dubai than in secular Detroit. The worse nightmare for me would have been living in atheist communist Russia. :shock: Cold, impersonal culture and the atheist inspired architecture lacks soul. The threat of the gulags always hangs over your head from your "comrades." I'd prefer to live in modern Indonesia and refrain from drawing in picture of Mohammad, thank you very much.






I never saw any of the ummah in the UAE acting like this from a bus driver merely asking, "What's up?" to a passing rider. YouTube - CCTV: Milwaukee Bus Driver Knocked Out!!


----------



## Ditch (Mar 7, 2011)

If we followed your line of reasoning I, and every other Republican,  would be killed because people feared we were IRA. That's xenophobia,  and that's exactly what you're advocating.

Since when is supporting our troops considered xenophobia? I do find it a little humorous being accused of xenophobia when my parents were foreigners who immigrated to this country. I was the darkest kid in my class and stuck out like a sore thumb. Some parents wouldn't even let me come over to their house.

Bush didn't confer with me about the decision to go to war so I don't feel as if I'm to blame for our being there. They celebrated in the streets when the Twin towers came down, I won't lose any sleep over any casualties on their side because as I said, the decision to go to war wasn't mine.


----------

