I take my stand, you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of what good is peace if it is bought at the cost of sacrificing all that we hold dear? There is a great failure in our country today and that is the failure to understand total submission. What total submission is and how it could lead to our demise. The greatest example of total submission today is Islam. Yes, Islam is the essence of total submission and it demands that not only from its followers but also from all that it confronts.
Surely we that place such great value on justice and freedom can see that there can be absolutely no peace with Islam, with those so dedicated to destroying freedom and justice as we know it. Destroying it as our founders intended and created a governing magnificent document to guide.
Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction. For abandoning our integrity, honor and justice we shall pay a heavy price. One that few will dare admit because such tragedy is always the fate of others and we console ourselves with that old line of comforting thinking. Should we fail to act such tragedy may possibly be a just fate for a peoples that have betrayed the sacrifice of millions that gave us the most precious of blessings: Independence, freedom, Rule of law and Constitution.! Such a combination that was not only unique in the world but has since failed to be duplicated !
Should we abandone common sense, Rule of Law to follow the easier path of appeasement our choice made to avoid confronting our fears and our enemy shall almost certainly bring destruction for having renounced the gift that has been dearly bought with the blood, tears and treasure of countless Americans that have lived and died fighting the true fight. The good fight of justice over injustice , of good over evil and the happiness of having created and passed on a blessing beyond compare to future generations..
Rather than yield to complacency, indifference and shallow lusts of the times it may be wise to learn again how to fall to bended knee and asked for strength of mind , pureness of heart and justice defended by righteous blade and keen intellect! If you have no “blade” sell your costly toys to buy the best money can buy. For what good be such if in maintaining one looses their head? Ask not mercy and gifts from enemies with no honor but instead stand firm defend your life, your family and your country! For life often demands great sacrifice, think not and life will take that and more. The more being that which few can or will dare imagine but life cares not about our fears and failures. It is we that should care more about life!
Care enough to stand against those that would murder our parents, enslave our children and exstinguish freedom and justice forever. Islam, shall not subjugate this great nation. Shall not if we face it without fear and with determination birthed from defending that which is good and right about our nation. The nation created to be the guiding light to the world. A Christian nation blessed by God and occupied by those brave enough to spill blood , blood of others as well as their own! -Tyr

No link , my composition...

[Dilloduck]

Of what good is peace if it is bought at the cost of sacrificing all that we hold dear? There is a great failure in our country today and that is the failure to understand total submission. What total submission is and how it could lead to our demise. The greatest example of total submission today is Islam. Yes, Islam is the essence of total submission and it demands that not only from its followers but also from all that it confronts.
Surely we that place such great value on justice and freedom can see that there can be absolutely no peace with Islam, with those so dedicated to destroying freedom and justice as we know it. Destroying it as our founders intended and created a governing magnificent document to guide.
Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction. For abandoning our integrity, honor and justice we shall pay a heavy price. One that few will dare admit because such tragedy is always the fate of others and we console ourselves with that old line of comforting thinking. Should we fail to act such tragedy may possibly be a just fate for a peoples that have betrayed the sacrifice of millions that gave us the most precious of blessings: Independence, freedom, Rule of law and Constitution.! Such a combination that was not only unique in the world but has since failed to be duplicated !
Should we abandone common sense, Rule of Law to follow the easier path of appeasement our choice made to avoid confronting our fears and our enemy shall almost certainly bring destruction for having renounced the gift that has been dearly bought with the blood, tears and treasure of countless Americans that have lived and died fighting the true fight. The good fight of justice over injustice , of good over evil and the happiness of having created and passed on a blessing beyond compare to future generations..
Rather than yield to complacency, indifference and shallow lusts of the times it may be wise to learn again how to fall to bended knee and asked for strength of mind , pureness of heart and justice defended by righteous blade and keen intellect! If you have no “blade” sell your costly toys to buy the best money can buy. For what good be such if in maintaining one looses their head? Ask not mercy and gifts from enemies with no honor but instead stand firm defend your life, your family and your country! For life often demands great sacrifice, think not and life will take that and more. The more being that which few can or will dare imagine but life cares not about our fears and failures. It is we that should care more about life!
Care enough to stand against those that would murder our parents, enslave our children and exstinguish freedom and justice forever. Islam, shall not subjugate this great nation. Shall not if we face it without fear and with determination birthed from defending that which is good and right about our nation. The nation created to be the guiding light to the world. A Christian nation blessed by God and occupied by those brave enough to spill blood , blood of others as well as their own! -Tyr

No link , my composition...

Do you suggest that we outlaw Islam in America ?

[aboutime]

Consider me standing right next to you. I refuse to allow ANYONE. No matter who they claim to be. No matter what superior status they claim to have in life, and despite their claimed higher educational training.

I first took my Oath. Just as Obama took an oath, with every present member of Congress. To protect, and defend the United States of America and our Constitution.

When I retired from active duty after 30 years in 1995. That oath I took, while raising my hand, and swearing. SO HELP ME GOD, did not retire on that day.

I will defend, honor, and obey that Constitution until I take my last breath, and NOBODY, but NOBODY will ever change that.

Which reminds me of the words our Democrat, Liberal fellow Americans hate. But still apply now.

"You are either with us...as Americans. Or, You are against us. There is no IN BETWEEN."

[aboutime]

Do you suggest that we outlaw Islam in America ?


Dilloduck. Show all of us where you saw, or read that suggestion. Then explain why you felt a need to ask such a thing if you are an American.

[Dilloduck]

How about American Muslims ? What's the plan with them ?

[Dilloduck]

Dilloduck. Show all of us where you saw, or read that suggestion. Then explain why you felt a need to ask such a thing if you are an American.

I didn't see it suggested. I was just wondering if that's the patriotic plan or not. I ask because I have the freedom of speech to do so.

[aboutime]

I didn't see it suggested. I was just wondering if that's the patriotic plan or not. I ask because I have the freedom of speech to do so.


Of course you have the freedom of speech to do so. But you make it sound like you'd rather hide behind such a freedom, than explain why, as an American. You would wonder...other than due to lack of comprehension, or even suggest asking such a question.

That line above sounds almost like something Obama would say..to avoid actually committing himself to answering honestly.

[Dilloduck]

Of course you have the freedom of speech to do so. But you make it sound like you'd rather hide behind such a freedom, than explain why, as an American. You would wonder...other than due to lack of comprehension, or even suggest asking such a question.

That line above sounds almost like something Obama would say..to avoid actually committing himself to answering honestly.

Obviously I asked the question because Tyr believes Islam is America's enemy. As good stand up Americans what do we do about American muslims ?

[aboutime]

Obviously I asked the question because Tyr believes Islam is America's enemy. As good stand up Americans what do we do about American muslims ?


The Islam Tyr is talking about is the BASTARDIZED version of Islam that brought those people from Saudi Arabia to the U.S., and took control of those planes on 911.

Too many people, like Obama, and seemingly...you. Seem to anxious to just grant those who hide behind their Religion of Peace here in America, and you allow them to remain quiet, rather than offering their true feelings about the America, and the American people who have given them those Freedoms, Rights, and Liberties by living here. But only enough to appease, or convince people to give them a break.
Americans. Even those who are Muslim. Must once and for all DECIDE. Whether they will honor their citizenship as Americans..only when it's easy, or comfortable for them. While praying in their Mosque, and asking for the destruction of the people who so openly welcomed them as citizens.

[Dilloduck]

The Islam Tyr is talking about is the BASTARDIZED version of Islam that brought those people from Saudi Arabia to the U.S., and took control of those planes on 911.

Too many people, like Obama, and seemingly...you. Seem to anxious to just grant those who hide behind their Religion of Peace here in America, and you allow them to remain quiet, rather than offering their true feelings about the America, and the American people who have given them those Freedoms, Rights, and Liberties by living here. But only enough to appease, or convince people to give them a break.
Americans. Even those who are Muslim. Must once and for all DECIDE. Whether they will honor their citizenship as Americans..only when it's easy, or comfortable for them. While praying in their Mosque, and asking for the destruction of the people who so openly welcomed them as citizens.

Are you suggesting that American muslims take an oath of loyalty to America ?

[Anton Chigurh]

How about some air between paragraphs? It looks to the eye like a long, run-on paragraph and turns the reader away from tackling it. I didn't read it for that reason.

[Little-Acorn]

Do you suggest that we outlaw Islam in America ?

Why do you want to outlaw Islam in America?

No one has suggested doing that, except you.

[gabosaurus]

I didn't see it suggested. I was just wondering if that's the patriotic plan or not. I ask because I have the freedom of speech to do so.

You can't ask people who are not patriots to come up with a patriotic plan.
You can't ask people with no sense of sanity to come up with a sane response.
You can't ask people who favor violent revenge to come up with a plan to answer violence.

[Dilloduck]

You can't ask people who are not patriots to come up with a patriotic plan.
You can't ask people with no sense of sanity to come up with a sane response.
You can't ask people who favor violent revenge to come up with a plan to answer violence.

Can too---I just did it. :coffee:

[gabosaurus]

Sounds like a whole lot of chakalaka to me.

[Dilloduck]

Why do you want to outlaw Islam in America?

No one has suggested doing that, except you.

Even you ?----I NEVER SUGGESTED OUTLAWING IT. I am asking what we do with American muslims. READ for God's sake.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How about some air between paragraphs? It looks to the eye like a long, run-on paragraph and turns the reader away from tackling it. I didn't read it for that reason.

Yep my teacher used to often ask me, "Robert why do you insist on those long long run on paragraphs"?
To which I always replied, "I like 'em teach, keeps the riftraft away."!;)
Nice to see that its still working ..;)--Tyr

[gabosaurus]

At least now we know why you dropped out of school.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At least now we know why you dropped out of school.

Yep and why you stayed is still a big mystery. When you get enough confidence to stop announcing how smart you foolishly believe that you are we will all be better off. Although Im not going to be holding my breath waiting on that one.-Tyr

[Anton Chigurh]

Yep my teacher used to often ask me, "Robert why do you insist on those long long run on paragraphs"?
To which I always replied, "I like 'em teach, keeps the riftraft away."!;)
Nice to see that its still working ..;)--TyrIt's "riff-raff."

You forget this is a marketplace, and we're your customers. Supply and demand.

[jafar00]

Tyr. I think you are seeing something that isn't there.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr. I think you are seeing something that isn't there.

So Islam's goal is not to have Allah worshipped as the only God and to be the only religion in the entire world?
If that is so then please list for me here and now what other religions it will tolerate.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's "riff-raff."

You forget this is a marketplace, and we're your customers. Supply and demand.

Well hoss, how would you know? You did not read it , remember?
Your Crystal ball doing overtime or what?-;)--Tyr

[Missileman]

So Islam's goal is not to have Allah worshipped as the only God and to be the only religion in the entire world?
If that is so then please list for me here and now what other religions it will tolerate.-Tyr

You aren't seriously thinking that's not the goal of Christianity are you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You aren't seriously thinking that's not the goal of Christianity are you?

Sure it is! The big difference is that Christians are no longer are using the sword to spread their message. Islam is and will continue to do so because it has not had a Reformation. And judging from their actions I do not see one coming anytime soon. Islam is a combination of political, religious and militant philosophy.
Christians are not beheading, stoning or cutting off feet or hands of thieves etc. Neither are they waging a worldwide campaign of terror to further their goals , Islam is.. -Tyr

[jafar00]

So Islam's goal is not to have Allah worshipped as the only God and to be the only religion in the entire world?
If that is so then please list for me here and now what other religions it will tolerate.-Tyr

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error (2:256)

Say: Oh Disbelievers
I worship not that which ye worship
Nor worship ye that I worship
And I shall not worship that which ye worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
(Surat Al Kaafiroon)

[Thunderknuckles]

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error (2:256)

Say: Oh Disbelievers
I worship not that which ye worship
Nor worship ye that I worship
And I shall not worship that which ye worship
Nor will ye worship that which I worship
Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion
(Surat Al Kaafiroon)

The catch? If said disbelievers insult your religion, you're dead.

As for American Muslims, the Constitution is clear. Look no further.

[taft2012]

How about American Muslims ? What's the plan with them ?

I imagine the same as was done with American communists.

[tailfins]

You can't ask people who are not patriots to come up with a patriotic plan.
You can't ask people with no sense of sanity to come up with a sane response.
You can't ask people who favor violent revenge to come up with a plan to answer violence.

But you can ask for and demand competence. The current state of affairs is unacceptable both in terms that Americans are still being murdered and the failed measures are ones that reduce freedom, namely the TSA.

[taft2012]

I am asking what we do with American muslims. READ for God's sake.

What do you think should be done with American muslims?

Here's a question; Is a Muslim in America safer than a Christian or Jew in any Islamic theocracy?

Yes or no?

[jafar00]

What do you think should be done with American muslims?

Here's a question; Is a Muslim in America safer than a Christian or Jew in any Islamic theocracy?

Yes or no?

A Muslim was safer under Mubarak too. However both Egyptians and American Muslims had secret police spying on them all the time.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you suggest that we outlaw Islam in America ?

Actually I suggest we face the threat and stop it before it grows too huge to stop. Denying that it exists does nothing but sanction it as a legitimate agenda that is perfectly fine to be advanced. The American citizens must decide how to stop it within the Rule of Law.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A Muslim was safer under Mubarak too. However both Egyptians and American Muslims had secret police spying on them all the time.

We have the Rule of Law here . We have a Constitution which stands in direct opposition to Sharia law. Either Islam gives or the Constitution does!-Tyr

[Gaffer]

A Muslim was safer under Mubarak too. However both Egyptians and American Muslims had secret police spying on them all the time.

Another misconception you have of America. We don't have secret police. Many on the left would love it if we did, but they do not exist here. We have informants and court ordered surveillance. But no secret police. Our communist inspired lefties would love to see such a thing, as long as it's used against conservatives.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Another misconception you have of America. We don't have secret police. Many on the left would love it if we did, but they do not exist here. We have informants and court ordered surveillance. But no secret police. Our communist inspired lefties would love to see such a thing, as long as it's used against conservatives.

Perhaps Jafar was thinking of that special civilian force obama stated that he wanted. The one just as well equipped and manned as our military. Remember back when obama mentioned wanting his own Gestapo? And the huge outcry put that on a backburner. Elect him again and watch a couple hundred billion dollars get "borrowed" to make the messiah's dream come true!-Tyr

[taft2012]

A Muslim was safer under Mubarak too. However both Egyptians and American Muslims had secret police spying on them all the time.

A rather simple "yes or no" question goes completely unaddressed. Why am I not surprised?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And will remain so as long as we stand against such insane intolerance as is enforced by Islamic terrorism.
Muhammed was a murderer and a lying child molester. Truth shall stand..-Tyr

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_illos/MuhammadMassacre.jpg&imgrefurl=http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_illos/&h=500&w=358&sz=64&tbnid=0wmXq5kodYOpCM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=78&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmuhammad%2Bpicture%2Bdrawn%2Bimage%26 tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=muhammad+picture+drawn+image&usg=__STCwoj1L-0TDMg1miOIKgZZzSgg=&docid=3PqNPHbSQzNlJM&sa=X&ei=Q-xRUPbQFsKs2gWwioDQCQ&ved=0CFsQ9QEwDA&dur=4750


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day

Wiki Loves Monuments: Historic sites, photos, and prizes!Everybody Draw Mohammed DayFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search


Cartoon, "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was an event held on May 20, 2010 in support of free speech and freedom of artistic expression of those threatened with violence for drawing representations of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, "201" by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for two segments broadcast in April 2010. Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that "everybody" create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park. Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadiths (sayings of and about Muhammad), though not by the Qur'an.[citation needed] Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com (under the pen name Abu Talha al-Amrikee; later identified as Zachary Adam Chesser) had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was stabbed and shot to death.[1]

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic. Within a week, Norris' idea became popular on Facebook, was supported by numerous bloggers, and generated coverage on the blog websites of major U.S. newspapers. As the publicity mounted, Norris and the man who created the first Facebook page promoting the May 20 event disassociated themselves from it. Nonetheless, planning for the protest continued with others "taking up the cause".[2] Facebook had an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page, which grew to over 100,000 participants (101,870 members by May 20). A protest page on Facebook against the initiative, named "Against ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'", attracted slightly more supporters (106,000 by May 20).[3] Subsequently, Facebook was temporarily blocked by Pakistan; the ban was lifted after Facebook agreed to block the page for users in India and Pakistan.

In the media, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day attracted both support from commentators who felt that the campaign represented important issues of freedom of speech, and the need to stand up for this freedom, as well as criticism from other commentators who found the initiative crass, juvenile, and needlessly offensive.

[logroller]

Another misconception you have of America. We don't have secret police. Many on the left would love it if we did, but they do not exist here. We have informants and court ordered surveillance. But no secret police. Our communist inspired lefties would love to see such a thing, as long as it's used against conservatives.
I believe it is you who have the wrong idea...as he was talking about Egypt, not America. Furthermore, Is the patriot act court ordered?

Perhaps Jafar was thinking of that special civilian force obama stated that he wanted. The one just as well equipped and manned as our military. Remember back when obama mentioned wanting his own Gestapo? And the huge outcry put that on a backburner. Elect him again and watch a couple hundred billion dollars get "borrowed" to make the messiah's dream come true!-Tyr
Oh but if he gets a Gestapo, think of how much easier it will to round up all the Muslims.-- you'd like that:thumb:

A rather simple "yes or no" question goes completely unaddressed. Why am I not surprised?
How is he to speak on the safety of America, he's not American. Are you American; why don't you answer your own question?

[tailfins]

This is America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And will remain so as long as we stand against such insane intolerance as is enforced by Islamic terrorism.

We do need to properly identify the enemy. Imagine if we had attacked China in 1941 because the US was attacked by Orientals.

[logroller]

We do need to properly identify the enemy. Imagine if we had attacked China in 1941 because the US was attacked by Orientals.
How very occidental. Do you call blacks coloreds?:coffee:

[tailfins]

How very occidental. Do you call blacks coloreds?:coffee:

I was imitating the verbiage of those who might have made such a decision to attack China in 1941.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What do you think should be done with American muslims?

Here's a question; Is a Muslim in America safer than a Christian or Jew in any Islamic theocracy?

Yes or no?

Answer is yes , muslims here are safer. America is not safer for having them and their isolated gated compounds/neighborhoods. Where often even the local cops do not enter!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Actually I suggest we face the threat and stop it before it grows too huge to stop. Denying that it exists does nothing but sanction it as a legitimate agenda that is perfectly fine to be advanced. The American citizens must decide how to stop it within the Rule of Law.-Tyr

Stop Islam within the rule of law ? Good luck.

[Drummond]

Stop Islam within the rule of law ? Good luck.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Dilloduck.

Are you saying that the only way to meaningfully combat Islam is lawlessly ?

... and actually, that's a point in itself. Over here in the UK, to even strongly CRITICISE Islam, within earshot of a Muslim and in a public place, can lead to said 'offended' Muslim being empowered to expect our authorities to act against the 'offender'.

Think about that.

[aboutime]

Answer is yes , muslims here are safer. America is not safer for having them and their isolated gated compounds/neighborhoods. Where often even the local cops do not enter!-Tyr


Tyr. OBL taught them well. And many of them who seem to happily live here in the USA, remain quiet, and unnoticed. Always obeying the laws. Smiling, and pretending to hate Terrorists, and Terrorism...just enough to get a pass, and listen to Obama apologize often, in order to NOT OFFEND, or UPSET those OBL taught...to become the real ENEMY WITHIN.

OBL decided back in the 1990's that he would slowly destroy America. First by tearing down the Economy. And in 1993, the first attack on the WTC took place, and CLINTON did nothing.
OBL then decided his plan to destroy American business, and the Economy had failed. So September 11th, became his second target date to take down the Terrible Americans.
OBL engineered just enough TERROR in Americans on that day to give them the opportunity to further DESTROY OURSELVES, one threat to our Constitution at a time, and to our Economy...and look at us now. All with the Wonderful, Appeasement, and Apologies of Obama. THE BEST PUPPET OBL could have asked for, and gotten.

Anyone have any questions about WHY America is about to go OVER THAT CLIFF NOW?

[Drummond]

A most interesting thread ! Thanks to Tyr for it .. I've just now read it in greater detail.

From my own experience in the UK, it seems perfectly obvious that Islamists have three distinct ways of operating in order to achieve a form of dominance in a Society.

The first is through terrorism .. and not much needs to be said on that score. 9/11, the UK's '7/7' attack in London, the attack at the Atosha station in Spain .. and many more attacks besides, in various parts of the world. Through murder and mayhem, they hope that through acts of terrorism, the will to fight back can be sapped .. and, I'm sorry to say, this sometimes is successful.

The second, pivotal, means (aided and abetted by the Left) is through social incursion. Immigrants arrive, equipped with their cultural and religious identities, they take root in specific areas, form their own communities, all of which pushes out what was in the area they occupy beforehand. Demands are made, all of which serve the requirements of the invading Islamic culture and traditions. Integration is a non-starter ... always, those communities expect OTHERS to bend to THEM.

The third is through exploitation of indigenous freedoms. Demands are made to insist that concession after concession is made to them. Pressure groups form, and always citing either the race card, or the 'bigotry' card, they insist that anyone opposing them must be doing so through unacceptably antisocial means. This is particularly where the Left comes in ... Left-wingers insist that to speak out against them is evidence of racism or bigotry, and pressure groups invariably win out. Laws are passed, such as 'hatespeech' legislation, making strong criticism actionable in law. But more, the indigenous population becomes conditioned to revile anyone not conforming to these socially-conditioned imperatives.

Terrorism is a very 'blunt instrument' for Muslims to use ... though also a much-favoured one, as we've all seen.

Social incursion is less blunt, dealing in large measure with a form of physical invasion. Areas are occupied and, in essence, 'terraformed' to become Muslim in 'nature'.

Exploitative incursion is the most insidious. Through it, social conditioning is brought to bear, aided, as I've said, by the Left. People are pressured into believing that just THINKING of forms of opposition is wrong .. bigoted, racist, intolerant generally. So, belief-systems grow which always, but ALWAYS, lead to an ongoing process of evolving deference .. to Islam and to those practising it.

Folks, understand .. I am not theorising, just describing an ongoing reality in my own society !! Common throughout all of this is the sheer invasiveness of Islam. Islam, in my experience, has no interest in compromise that doesn't end up in achieving considerable advantage to ITS purposes, and more often than not compromise isn't even a factor AT ALL. No, Islam spreads and dominates .. and that's the point of Islam in a nutshell .. one of DOMINION.

Now .. how is that remotely compatible with the preservation of freedoms ? Answer .. IT ISN'T, not if those 'freedoms' are freedoms to defy Islam.

The conflict of Sharia with Western values is a case in point. In the UK, as a guiding legal principle, UK law should always prevail. If a Sharia directive can be arrived at and no UK law is broken, then 'fair enough' in our system ... BUT ... legally, no Sharia law 'court' can set itself up in defiance against UK law.

Sounds fine, doesn't it ... BUT for the process I've described already. Our laws are the product of values reflected by the population, HOWEVER, if those values change, then we can expect our laws to reflect that. Hatespeech legislation is a case in point. So .. if our values bend over time, if in the name of 'tolerance' we find we 'want' to accept other values and defer to them (led by the nose into this by Lefties ..) .. then the law, in the fullness of time, can undergo a form of erosion, where other laws supersede them.

As a consequence of ALL this, it's evident that we've been seen in the UK to be fair game for incursion. We get remarkably little incidence of terrorism here, I think because the 'sneakier' methods work here so very well !! So, goodbye churches, and hello, monolithic Mosque structures. And be careful what you say !!!!

But, America has an advantage we fail to have. You have a Constitution which can act as a barrier to certain incursions, it seems to me. So, the question for me is, just how bulletproof does this make America by comparison ?

I've heard that Obama is known for acting unconstitutionally when it suits him to .. surely a dangerous precedent. Should your society allow it ?

Does Obama cite reasonings to justify himself, reasonings which persuade others to adopt societal values which can 'catch on' and seem reasonable ? Folks, I'm somewhat out of my depth in trying to judge this either way, but what I'm saying is, IF this is happening, the dangers inherent in that process are grave.

So, surely, Americans must be prepared to fight if needs be, for what is theirs by right .. by birthright. Tyr's spirit is commendable, but perhaps more importantly, is INSIGHTFUL ... because you ARE in a war against those utterly determined to overthrow your values. They'll use whatever methodology works, be it the gun or bomb, acts of savagery, or of deployed propaganda crafted to fight your very thought processes and change them to THEIR preferences.

Therein, if they succeed, lies the road to the death of freedom.

DO YOU WANT THAT ? YES OR NO ? Because if 'no', then my suggestion is that you take the utmost notice of what Tyr had to tell you. And .. if that isn't enough for you, then cast your eyes and ears eastwards, to learn what's happening on my side of the Pond. To see what COULD happen .. if you allow it to.

[Dilloduck]

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, Dilloduck.

Are you saying that the only way to meaningfully combat Islam is lawlessly ?

... and actually, that's a point in itself. Over here in the UK, to even strongly CRITICISE Islam, within earshot of a Muslim and in a public place, can lead to said 'offended' Muslim being empowered to expect our authorities to act against the 'offender'.

Think about that.

That's your problem. In America the right to worship as you please and freedom of speech is protected

[Drummond]

I looked for a link like this one as evidence of the 'non-peacefulness' of Islam, since there are those on this forum who insist that Islam is entirely peaceful, and no basis for terrorism !!

Well, my link shows the opposite .. violence is clearly encouraged as a means to an end in Islam. More, it's actually mandated .. specifically from Koranic imperatives recorded as such, as central to what it is.

And here's another point .. links such as the one I'm posting here show just how uncompromisingly Islam is focused on seeing to it that it predominates - how intolerant it is of anything outside of it.

So to the link ...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Qur%27an




Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war. Qur’an:9:5

The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed. Qur’an:9:112

Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission. Qur’an:9:29

Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah. Qur’an:8:39

So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world). Qur’an:8:39

Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them. Qur’an:9:14

Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place. Qur’an:9:38

Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you. Qur’an:9:123

The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause. Qur’an:9:88

O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding. Qur’an:8:65

The revelation of the scripture is from Allah, The Mighty, The Wise. Qur’an:45:2

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you. Qur’an:16:15

Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it. Qur’an: 24:43

Quran as political charter

The Quran is a political document used by many Islamic nations as a constitution; Libya's constitution (Article 2 of the one adopted in 1977), Saudi Arabia's Basic Law, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, etc. make this clear. Ergo, I add [[Category:Politics]] to this page.--Inesculent 11:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[Dilloduck]

I looked for a link like this one as evidence of the 'non-peacefulness' of Islam, since there are those on this forum who insist that Islam is entirely peaceful, and no basis for terrorism !!

Well, my link shows the opposite .. violence is clearly encouraged as a means to an end in Islam. More, it's actually mandated .. specifically from Koranic imperatives recorded as such, as central to what it is.

And here's another point .. links such as the one I'm posting here show just how uncompromisingly Islam is focused on seeing to it that it predominates - how intolerant it is of anything outside of it.

So to the link ...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Qur%27an

We've been through all this with people who cherry pick Bible verses to prove how violent the Bible is.

[Drummond]

That's your problem. In America the right to worship as you please and freedom of speech is protected

Oh, I'm sure it is. And I accept your point as a fair one, so far as it goes.

But consider what I posted after answering you previously ... have I not made the point, in my own way, that you face an adversary that uses those freedoms to further a process of incursion ?

Freedoms such as those you obviously adhere to are perfectly fine in themselves. But .. and as I've argued in the past .. with freedom, comes responsibility. It can't just be taken for granted, and at times it needs to be defended.

What I'm saying is this. Be alert to those who'd subvert those freedoms for their own ends.

[Dilloduck]

Oh, I'm sure it is. And I accept your point as a fair one, so far as it goes.

But consider what I posted after answering you previously ... have I not made the point, in my own way, that you face an adversary that uses those freedoms to further a process of incursion ?

Freedoms such as those you obviously adhere to are perfectly fine in themselves. But .. and as I've argued in the past .. with freedom, comes responsibility. It can't just be taken for granted, and at times it needs to be defended.

What I'm saying is this. Be alert to those who'd subvert those freedoms for their own ends.

We are---doesn't mean we can stop it.

[Drummond]

We've been through all this with people who cherry pick Bible verses to prove how violent the Bible is.

But the quotes are unequivocal. They're not exactly mistakeable for anything else other than proof of a thoroughly aggressive, actually violent religion that'll stop at nothing to predominate !!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh but if he gets a Gestapo, think of how much easier it will to round up all the Muslims.-- you'd like that:thumb:


OK, SHOW ME ANY QUOTE IN WHICH I INDICATED THAT ROUNDING THEM UP WAS A PLAN. I CAN WAIT.--Tyr

[Drummond]

We are---doesn't mean we can stop it.

What are you saying, then ? That surrender to incursions is mandated ?

[Dilloduck]

But the quotes are unequivocal. They're not exactly mistakeable for anything else other than proof of a thoroughly aggressive, actually violent religion that'll stop at nothing to predominate !!

So are the Biblical quotes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We've been through all this with people who cherry pick Bible verses to prove how violent the Bible is.

Truly a faulty comparison because the bible has a New Testament that teaches violence is not the way. Christians are clearly taught that violence is not the way. Islam has no such reformation. Islam teaches violence is a method commanded by Allah. You have seen the verses ,Drummond and others have posted them often enough. Why do you continue to ignore such clear verses sanctining violence from the Koran?-Tyr

[Drummond]

So are the Biblical quotes.

Interesting. You're suggesting equivalence ?

OK, try this one as an example .. the first listed ...


Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

Cite me a quote from the Bible that gives the same command to Christians.

[Dilloduck]

Truly a faulty comparison because the bible has a New Testament that teaches violence is not the way. Christians are clearly taught that violence is not the way. Islam has no such reformation. Islam teaches violence is a method commanded by Allah. You have seen the verses ,Drummond and others have posted them often enough. Why do you continue to ignore such clear verses sanctining violence from the Koran?-Tyr

Your examples of scripture are valid yet mine aren't ? :laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

Interesting. You're suggesting equivalence ?

OK, try this one as an example .. the first listed ...



Cite me a quote from the Bible that gives the same command to Christians.

I'm suggesting violence. Stoning people etc.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A most interesting thread ! Thanks to Tyr for it .. I've just now read it in greater detail.

From my own experience in the UK, it seems perfectly obvious that Islamists have three distinct ways of operating in order to achieve a form of dominance in a Society.

The first is through terrorism .. and not much needs to be said on that score. 9/11, the UK's '7/7' attack in London, the attack at the Atosha station in Spain .. and many more attacks besides, in various parts of the world. Through murder and mayhem, they hope that through acts of terrorism, the will to fight back can be sapped .. and, I'm sorry to say, this sometimes is successful.

The second, pivotal, means (aided and abetted by the Left) is through social incursion. Immigrants arrive, equipped with their cultural and religious identities, they take root in specific areas, form their own communities, all of which pushes out what was in the area they occupy beforehand. Demands are made, all of which serve the requirements of the invading Islamic culture and traditions. Integration is a non-starter ... always, those communities expect OTHERS to bend to THEM.

The third is through exploitation of indigenous freedoms. Demands are made to insist that concession after concession is made to them. Pressure groups form, and always citing either the race card, or the 'bigotry' card, they insist that anyone opposing them must be doing so through unacceptably antisocial means. This is particularly where the Left comes in ... Left-wingers insist that to speak out against them is evidence of racism or bigotry, and pressure groups invariably win out. Laws are passed, such as 'hatespeech' legislation, making strong criticism actionable in law. But more, the indigenous population becomes conditioned to revile anyone not conforming to these socially-conditioned imperatives.

Terrorism is a very 'blunt instrument' for Muslims to use ... though also a much-favoured one, as we've all seen.

Social incursion is less blunt, dealing in large measure with a form of physical invasion. Areas are occupied and, in essence, 'terraformed' to become Muslim in 'nature'.

Exploitative incursion is the most insidious. Through it, social conditioning is brought to bear, aided, as I've said, by the Left. People are pressured into believing that just THINKING of forms of opposition is wrong .. bigoted, racist, intolerant generally. So, belief-systems grow which always, but ALWAYS, lead to an ongoing process of evolving deference .. to Islam and to those practising it.

Folks, understand .. I am not theorising, just describing an ongoing reality in my own society !! Common throughout all of this is the sheer invasiveness of Islam. Islam, in my experience, has no interest in compromise that doesn't end up in achieving considerable advantage to ITS purposes, and more often than not compromise isn't even a factor AT ALL. No, Islam spreads and dominates .. and that's the point of Islam in a nutshell .. one of DOMINION.

Now .. how is that remotely compatible with the preservation of freedoms ? Answer .. IT ISN'T, not if those 'freedoms' are freedoms to defy Islam.

The conflict of Sharia with Western values is a case in point. In the UK, as a guiding legal principle, UK law should always prevail. If a Sharia directive can be arrived at and no UK law is broken, then 'fair enough' in our system ... BUT ... legally, no Sharia law 'court' can set itself up in defiance against UK law.

Sounds fine, doesn't it ... BUT for the process I've described already. Our laws are the product of values reflected by the population, HOWEVER, if those values change, then we can expect our laws to reflect that. Hatespeech legislation is a case in point. So .. if our values bend over time, if in the name of 'tolerance' we find we 'want' to accept other values and defer to them (led by the nose into this by Lefties ..) .. then the law, in the fullness of time, can undergo a form of erosion, where other laws supersede them.

As a consequence of ALL this, it's evident that we've been seen in the UK to be fair game for incursion. We get remarkably little incidence of terrorism here, I think because the 'sneakier' methods work here so very well !! So, goodbye churches, and hello, monolithic Mosque structures. And be careful what you say !!!!

But, America has an advantage we fail to have. You have a Constitution which can act as a barrier to certain incursions, it seems to me. So, the question for me is, just how bulletproof does this make America by comparison ?

I've heard that Obama is known for acting unconstitutionally when it suits him to .. surely a dangerous precedent. Should your society allow it ?

Does Obama cite reasonings to justify himself, reasonings which persuade others to adopt societal values which can 'catch on' and seem reasonable ? Folks, I'm somewhat out of my depth in trying to judge this either way, but what I'm saying is, IF this is happening, the dangers inherent in that process are grave.

So, surely, Americans must be prepared to fight if needs be, for what is theirs by right .. by birthright. Tyr's spirit is commendable, but perhaps more importantly, is INSIGHTFUL ... because you ARE in a war against those utterly determined to overthrow your values. They'll use whatever methodology works, be it the gun or bomb, acts of savagery, or of deployed propaganda crafted to fight your very thought processes and change them to THEIR preferences.

Therein, if they succeed, lies the road to the death of freedom.

DO YOU WANT THAT ? YES OR NO ? Because if 'no', then my suggestion is that you take the utmost notice of what Tyr had to tell you. And .. if that isn't enough for you, then cast your eyes and ears eastwards, to learn what's happening on my side of the Pond. To see what COULD happen .. if you allow it to.

Freaking --A.. --:beer:---:beer:
Outstanding presentation my friend! I've stated many times here ,want to see what they have in store for us just look to what they have done to Britain with the help of their leftist allies there. We see the same alliance here in its early stages. If we refuse to act firmly and with courageous resolve they will win here even if it takes 40, 60 or 80 years. They are big believers in a slow death by a thousand small cuts, they use that philosophy in other ways as well.--Tyr

[Drummond]

Truly a faulty comparison because the bible has a New Testament that teaches violence is not the way. Christians are clearly taught that violence is not the way. Islam has no such reformation. Islam teaches violence is a method commanded by Allah. You have seen the verses ,Drummond and others have posted them often enough. Why do you continue to ignore such clear verses sanctining violence from the Koran?-Tyr

Thanks, Tyr, this is what I was driving at in the post I've aimed at Dilloduck. Islam is a savage, brutal religion, the antithesis of Christianity.

Toleration of systematic INtolerance isn't a reasonable proposition.

[Dilloduck]

Thanks, Tyr, this is what I was driving at in the post I've aimed at Dilloduck. Islam is a savage, brutal religion, the antithesis of Christianity.

Toleration of systematic INtolerance isn't a reasonable proposition.

Jews don't have a new testament and the Christian new testament does not negate the old testament.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your examples of scripture are valid yet mine aren't ? :laugh2:

Do you understand what the New Testament is at all? Or are you pretending this misunderstanding?
The New Testament in the bible teaches love your enemies and live your life as did Jesus. Jesus killed nobody and made war on nobody, he healed the sick and gave of himself. He gave his life to redeem us of our sins, he did not condone stoning , beheading or harming anybody.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Freaking --A.. --:beer:---:beer:
Outstanding presentation my friend! I've stated many times here ,want to see what they have in store for us just look to what they have done to Britain with the help of their leftist allies there. We see the same alliance here in its early stages. If we refuse to act firmly and with courageous resolve they will win here even if it takes 40, 60 or 80 years. They are big believers in a slow death by a thousand small cuts, they use that philosophy in other ways as well.--Tyr

:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting::goodpostin g:

.. and many thanks, Tyr. :beer:

Your post puts it perfectly .. I've no need to comment further in my answer !

[Dilloduck]

Do you understand what the New Testament is at all? Or are you pretending this misunderstanding?
The New Testament in the bible teaches love your enemies and live your life as did Jesus. Jesus killed nobody and made war on nobody, he healed the sick and gave of himself. He gave his life to redeem us of our sins, he did not condone stoning , beheading or harming anybody.-Tyr

I'm fully aware of the new testament. Jews don't have one and Jesus plainly said that the new law does NOT replace the old law. You're the one who has some reading to do.

[logroller]

OK, SHOW ME ANY QUOTE IN WHICH I INDICATED THAT ROUNDING THEM UP WAS A PLAN. I CAN WAIT.--Tyr
Show me where I said you said that..I can wait. I Could quote you saying all of Islam is the problem, that they threaten our very way life at home and abroad, that there's no peacful solution to the problem, That they're vermin, along with calls to use weapons of mass destruction against their holy sites...it doesn't take a historian to see the patterned logic of genocide Tyr. Besides, Obama didn't say anything about wanting a "Gestapo", Maine governor Paul Lepage said that of the IRS...but don't let factual accuracy abridge your prejudice and hate. :cool:

[Drummond]

I'm fully aware of the new testament. Jews don't have one and Jesus plainly said that the new law does NOT replace the old law. You're the one who has some reading to do.

Do I get from this that you'd sum up Jesus as follows:-

'Hello, I'm Jesus. Thought you'd like to know that I'm here for no particular reason, everything's peachy, I'm just here for a bit of a visit, don't mind me, I've nothing to say, oh, and by the way, who fancies some spare fish ?'

[Dilloduck]

Do I get from this that you'd sum up Jesus as follows:-

'Hello, I'm Jesus. Thought you'd like to know that I'm here for no particular reason, everything's peachy, I'm just here for a bit of a visit, don't mind me, I've nothing to say, oh, and by the way, who fancies some spare fish ?'

That's it exactly ! I knew you'd understand

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm fully aware of the new testament. Jews don't have one and Jesus plainly said that the new law does NOT replace the old law. You're the one who has some reading to do.

I do believe you are the first true contrarian I've met that never gets tired of pretending to have not understood a single word of the replies given back. The subject of this thread is not the bible. Its Islam, Sharia law and our nation's survival. Want to discuss the bible new and old testament start a thread amigo. Otherwise I suggest you cite what you disagree with in my original post the subject of this thread or Drummund's brilliant presentation that is more than worthy of being debated. Perhaps you agree or disagree with posts made here by others. Go for it . Im done here with this bible discussion.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I do believe you are the first true contrarian I've met that never gets tired of pretending to have not understood a single word of the replies given back. The subject of this thread is not the bible. Its Islam, Sharia law and our nation's survival. Want to discuss the bible new and old testament start a thread amigo. Otherwise I suggest you cite what you disagree with in my original post the subject of this thread or Drummund's brilliant presentation that is more than worthy of being debated. Perhaps you agree or disagree with posts made here by others. Go for it . Im done here with this bible discussion.-Tyr

I already have---several times.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Show me where I said you said that..I can wait. I Could quote you saying all of Islam is the problem, that they threaten our very way life at home and abroad, that there's no peacful solution to the problem, That they're vermin, along with calls to use weapons of mass destruction against their holy sites...it doesn't take a historian to see the patterned logic of genocide Tyr. Besides, Obama didn't say anything about wanting a "Gestapo", Maine governor Paul Lepage said that of the IRS...but don't let factual accuracy abridge your prejudice and hate. :cool:

ok here.




Originally Posted by logroller
Oh but if he gets a Gestapo, think of how much easier it will to round up all the Muslims.-- you'd like that

OK, SHOW ME ANY QUOTE IN WHICH I INDICATED THAT ROUNDING THEM UP WAS A PLAN. I CAN WAIT.--Tyr

Short term memory loss a real biatch eh? You brought up (rounding them up) not me , then you say that I'd like that ..
What does that mean exactly? So I asked for you show me where I ever indicated that they should be rounded up. You have not. fail, thanks for playing..-Tyr

[Drummond]

That's it exactly ! I knew you'd understand

But that's the point. I don't.

[Drummond]

I'm with Tyr. This thread, Dilloduck, is meant to consider Islam and what follows from it, not become some increasingly convoluted Christian Bible study.

[logroller]

Truly a faulty comparison because the bible has a New Testament that teaches violence is not the way. Christians are clearly taught that violence is not the way. Islam has no such reformation. Islam teaches violence is a method commanded by Allah. You have seen the verses ,Drummond and others have posted them often enough. Why do you continue to ignore such clear verses sanctining violence from the Koran?-Tyr

You advocate violence...not very Christian of you. But you make a good point; as we're a christian nation, why don't we let the old testament followers and quranic followers settle their own disputes in their own manner abroad. I thought manifest destiny was over; why if we are beacon of freedom and good will do we police the world and sell arms to nations prone to violence? It's made us wealthier, but not safer or more free. If our politics violate our Christian beliefs, perhaps we need to reevaluate our policy?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

From my own experience in the UK, it seems perfectly obvious that Islamists have three distinct ways of operating in order to achieve a form of dominance in a Society.

The first is through terrorism .. and not much needs to be said on that score. 9/11, the UK's '7/7' attack in London, the attack at the Atosha station in Spain .. and many more attacks besides, in various parts of the world. Through murder and mayhem, they hope that through acts of terrorism, the will to fight back can be sapped .. and, I'm sorry to say, this sometimes is successful.

The second, pivotal, means (aided and abetted by the Left) is through social incursion. Immigrants arrive, equipped with their cultural and religious identities, they take root in specific areas, form their own communities, all of which pushes out what was in the area they occupy beforehand. Demands are made, all of which serve the requirements of the invading Islamic culture and traditions. Integration is a non-starter ... always, those communities expect OTHERS to bend to THEM.

The third is through exploitation of indigenous freedoms. Demands are made to insist that concession after concession is made to them. Pressure groups form, and always citing either the race card, or the 'bigotry' card, they insist that anyone opposing them must be doing so through unacceptably antisocial means. This is particularly where the Left comes in ... Left-wingers insist that to speak out against them is evidence of racism or bigotry, and pressure groups invariably win out. Laws are passed, such as 'hatespeech' legislation, making strong criticism actionable in law. But more, the indigenous population becomes conditioned to revile anyone not conforming to these socially-conditioned imperatives.

This was very insightful information and very helpful indeed in revealing what has been done to Britain. A tragic situation over there where they had to establish a defence league, English Defence League its called right, to try to protect their way of life from being destroyed by the islamists!? Question is, is it too little too late?-Tyr

[logroller]

ok here.




Short term memory loss a real biatch eh? You brought up (rounding them up) not me , then you say that I'd like that ..
What does that mean exactly? So I asked for you show me where I ever indicated that they should be rounded up. You have not. fail, thanks for playing..-Tyr
Do you deny you would like it? Still pointed out you're a damn liar about what Obama said re: Gestapo...so suck it bitch you brought it up-- Godwins law you fucking heathen!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you deny you would like it? Still pointed out you're a damn liar about what Obama said re: Gestapo...so suck it bitch you brought it up-- Godwins law you fucking heathen!

Golden rule of combat , get your opponent pissed, they make more and greater mistakes that way. Works in debating too.
Jethro's law sucker, don't hit a man with a club unless you are sure he will not take it away from you and then beat ur dumb ass with it!:laugh2:
Taking the club was easy, deciding when ,where and how hard to hit ya was a bit harder but I managed alright you arrogant prick..-:laugh:
Better a heathen than a prick I always say.-;)
fail, still you post no round up quote made by me. -Tyr

[Drummond]

You advocate violence...not very Christian of you. But you make a good point; as we're a christian nation, why don't we let the old testament followers and quranic followers settle their own disputes in their own manner abroad. I thought manifest destiny was over; why if we are beacon of freedom and good will do we police the world and sell arms to nations prone to violence? It's made us wealthier, but not safer or more free. If our politics violate our Christian beliefs, perhaps we need to reevaluate our policy?

Logroller, I recall challenging you on another thread to show me where, in the Christian Bible, it says that Christians should sit back and let evil triumph (not sure if I used exactly those words, though that in essence was what I wanted you to answer). But I did not see you take up that challenge.

A central point, surely, to Tyr's opening post is that Islam is a direct threat to YOUR COUNTRY, TO YOUR WAY OF LIFE, TO ALL YOU HOLD DEAR. But what I'm getting from your posting is that you aren't recognising the fact that Islamists want to complete their incursions, actually their invasion, of all that your country is.

You think that if everyone just sits back and passively does nothing, Islamists will just go away ?? Islam's goal, Logroller, is dominion over all of us. Tyr has the sense to understand that what he believes in has to be preserved, NOT through inaction, but by making a stand, to defend his country !

I think, Logroller, that all you want is total passivity. Totally affordable if you can convince your adversaries that you're dead and eminently ignorable, but I'm afraid that for those who are alive, have beliefs we hold dear, and want them preserved and cherished, we have something that is worth defending !!

Bottom line: there is an enemy out there, and it's not a nice enemy. It won't just go away as a product of your wishful thinking !

[logroller]

Golden rule of combat , get your opponent pissed, they make more and greater mistakes that way. Works in debating too.
Jethro's law sucker, don't hit a man with a club unless you are sure he will not take it away from you and then beat ur dumb ass with it!:laugh2:
Taking the club was easy, deciding when ,where and how hard to hit ya was a bit harder but I managed alright you arrogant prick..-:laugh:
Better a heathen than a prick I always say.-;)
fail, still you post no round up quote made by me. -Tyr
I never said you said it-- I said you'd like it...you don't even deny it. Motion carries. :dance:

[Dilloduck]

Inspite of all your fears and proclamations the truth is that there is a war on terror being waged by the US right now. We have people watching and listening for this type of thing. Stop worrying.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I never said you said it-- I said you'd like it...you don't even deny it. Motion carries. :dance:

I know that you arent that dense.
My asking you to prove by quoting me was a denial. IN FACT, I AM DEAD SET AGAINST IT BECAUSE ROUNDING UP IS WHAT HITLER DID TO THE JEWS AND WHAT FDR DID TO JAPANESE AMERICANS DURING WW2 !
Nice dancing, but its better when one has a beautiful female partner. At least this heathen thinks so because beautiful women are a gem worth holding be it dancing or otherwise.-;) -Tyr

[logroller]

Logroller, I recall challenging you on another thread to show me where, in the Christian Bible, it says that Christians should sit back and let evil triumph (not sure if I used exactly those words, though that in essence was what I wanted you to answer). But I did not see you take up that challenge.

A central point, surely, to Tyr's opening post is that Islam is a direct threat to YOUR COUNTRY, TO YOUR WAY OF LIFE, TO ALL YOU HOLD DEAR. But what I'm getting from your posting is that you aren't recognising the fact that Islamists want to complete their incursions, actually their invasion, of all that your country is.

You think that if everyone just sits back and passively does nothing, Islamists will just go away ?? Islam's goal, Logroller, is dominion over all of us. Tyr has the sense to understand that what he believes in has to be preserved, NOT through inaction, but by making a stand, to defend his country !

I think, Logroller, that all you want is total passivity. Totally affordable if you can convince your adversaries that you're dead and eminently ignorable, but I'm afraid that for those who are alive, have beliefs we hold dear, and want them preserved and cherished, we have something that is worth defending !!

Bottom line: there is an enemy out there, and it's not a nice enemy. It won't just go away as a product of your wishful thinking !
The bottom line is the enemy is within yourself-- You're too weak to do anything or too if ignorant to realize it-- preferring instead to oppress others under the auspices of self preservation. I am alive in spirit, my life reflects that and nobody can take that away unless I allow them to-- not you, not the police, not some terrorist. That you see confident passivity as weak speaks to your own lack of confidence in your Beliefs. Maybe that's why England's fucked; sorry ass blame gamers like yourself fuelin the policies that attempt to make up for your personal inadequacies...or perhaps your imperial cocks have come home to roost. Cheers!

[logroller]

Hey drummond, I don't recall that challenge; but it's loaded. How does the bible, specifically the new testament instruct us to combat evil and sin? Is it through violence?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My feelings on Islam and its plan to destroy USA.

Of what good is peace if it is bought at the cost of sacrificing all that we hold dear? There is a great failure in our country today and that is the failure to understand total submission. What total submission is and how it could lead to our demise. The greatest example of total submission today is Islam. Yes, Islam is the essence of total submission and it demands that not only from its followers but also from all that it confronts.
Surely we that place such great value on justice and freedom can see that there can be absolutely no peace with Islam, with those so dedicated to destroying freedom and justice as we know it. Destroying it as our founders intended and created a governing magnificent document to guide.

Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction. For abandoning our integrity, honor and justice we shall pay a heavy price. One that few will dare admit because such tragedy is always the fate of others and we console ourselves with that old line of comforting thinking. Should we fail to act such tragedy may possibly be a just fate for a peoples that have betrayed the sacrifice of millions that gave us the most precious of blessings: Independence, Freedom, Rule of law and Constitution.! Such a combination that was not only unique in the world but has since failed to be duplicated !

Should we abandone common sense, Rule of Law to follow the easier path of appeasement our choice made to avoid confronting our fears and our enemy shall almost certainly bring destruction for having renounced the gift that has been dearly bought with the blood, tears and treasure of countless Americans that have lived and died fighting the true fight. The good fight of justice over injustice , of good over evil and the happiness of having created and passed on a blessing beyond compare to future generations..

Rather than yield to complacency, indifference and shallow lusts of the times it may be wise to learn again how to fall to bended knee and asked for strength of mind , pureness of heart and justice defended by righteous blade and keen intellect! If you have no “blade” sell your costly toys to buy the best money can buy. For what good be such if in maintaining one looses their head? Ask not mercy and gifts from enemies with no honor but instead stand firm, defend your life, your family and your country! For life often demands great sacrifice, think not and life will take that and more. The more being that which few can or will dare imagine but life cares not about our fears and failures. It is we that should care more about life!

Care enough to stand against those that would murder our parents, enslave our children and exstinguish our freedom and justice forever. Islam, shall not subjugate this great nation. Shall not if we face it without fear and with determination birthed from defending that which is good and right about our nation. This nation created to be the guiding light to the world. A Christian nation blessed by God and occupied by those brave enough to spill blood , blood of others as well as their own!--Tyr

Second draft.. decided not to add in the long post previously cut before my posting the first addressing -lack of patriotism from the Dem party and its dire effects upon this nation and our military . Perhaps worthy of another thread at a later time. More fodder for my critics!!!:laugh:

[tailfins]

That you see confident passivity as weak speaks to your own lack of confidence in your Beliefs.

I think that's called "strategic waiting". Many people do forget that waiting can be an active, planned response.

[logroller]

I think that's called "strategic waiting". Many people do forget that waiting can be an active, planned response.
In the corporate lexicon, id agree. You weren't kiddin about your corporate experience.

[logroller]

Logroller, I recall challenging you on another thread to show me where, in the Christian Bible, it says that Christians should sit back and let evil triumph (not sure if I used exactly those words, though that in essence was what I wanted you to answer). But I did not see you take up that challenge.

A central point, surely, to Tyr's opening post is that Islam is a direct threat to YOUR COUNTRY, TO YOUR WAY OF LIFE, TO ALL YOU HOLD DEAR. But what I'm getting from your posting is that you aren't recognising the fact that Islamists want to complete their incursions, actually their invasion, of all that your country is.

You think that if everyone just sits back and passively does nothing, Islamists will just go away ?? Islam's goal, Logroller, is dominion over all of us. Tyr has the sense to understand that what he believes in has to be preserved, NOT through inaction, but by making a stand, to defend his country !

I think, Logroller, that all you want is total passivity. Totally affordable if you can convince your adversaries that you're dead and eminently ignorable, but I'm afraid that for those who are alive, have beliefs we hold dear, and want them preserved and cherished, we have something that is worth defending !!

Bottom line: there is an enemy out there, and it's not a nice enemy. It won't just go away as a product of your wishful thinking !
Tyr and I seemingly disagree upon that which we hold dearest. I yield to divine providence; he manifests earthly desires of rectitude. Perhaps we'll always be at ends.
What I'm trying to say is all that I hold sacred on this earth is of no consequence if it be ill-gotten. Freedom is from God, not from country. In fact history shows that in those countries held under God's trust, (in practice, not name alone), great riches are bestowed. I see that my country, at the behest of my countrymen, has been victimized by the evils of sin. Rather than take up sword, i seek to clean my own house of its trespasses. Such is not passive; but rather an active pursuit of the faithful service to which I, in faith that We, may inherit God's kingdom on earth as it is heaven.
To answer your challenge,(which is no challenge, btw; I googled it, same as you could have) http://www.openbible.info/topics/dealing_with_evil_people


Matthew 5:43-48
43 “You have heard that it was said,‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, andsends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[a (http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-48&version=ESV#fen-ESV-23282a)] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Praise the Lord, Jesus Christ.



1 Peter 3:8-18
8 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary,bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.10 For“Whoever desires to love life
and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
and his lips from speaking deceit;
11 let him turn away from evil and do good;
let him seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy,always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness andrespect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.
18 For Christ also suffered[a (http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A8-18&version=ESV#fen-ESV-30426a)] once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Is obedient service to the Lord, Jesus Christ "wishful thinking"?
I can tell you, but cannot explain how, save Christ the Lord, that when I submit to service of the the almighty I am blessed with spiritual and earthly riches.
Ill bid you adieu with a quote I find explicit of our differences.


<dl><dt style="font-size: 17px; ">In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying.</dt><dd class="author" style="font-size: 25px; margin-top: 8px; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 4em; ">Bertrand Russell (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Bertrand_Russell/)
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970) <fb:like href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32996.html" send="false" layout="button_count" width="33" show_faces="false" font="arial" class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" style="position: relative; display: inline-block; "><iframe id="f2876419c4" name="f1337dd758" scrolling="no" title="Like this content on Facebook." class="fb_ltr " src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=54077556871&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D11%23cb%3Df3d 010be98%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.quotatio nspage.com%252Ff17f8335e8%26domain%3Dwww.quotation spage.com%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&font=arial&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quotationspage.com%2Fquote%2 F32996.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&send=false&show_faces=false&width=90" style="position: absolute; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; height: 21px; width: 74px; "></iframe></fb:like></dd></dl>

[taft2012]

How is he to speak on the safety of America, he's not American. Are you American; why don't you answer your own question?

Oh brother. Sometimes people are given way too much credit for more intelligence than they have.

The question was simply; are Jews and Christians safer living in Islamic theocracies than Muslims are living in the USA.

Your response was essentially; "Gasp! Swoon! Limpwrist! How is he to speak on the safety of America, he's not American. Are you American; why don't you answer your own question?"

Ignoring the fact that I do not actually live in an Islamic theocracy and according to your own effeminate guidelines am as unable to answer the question as our resident head-lopper is....

Putting that idiocy aside.... do I really have to go live in an Islamic theocracy, and have my head cut off, so your ladylike coke-for-anus president can strap on his mandals, swing his manpurse over his shoulder, and go prancing off to Las Vegas to do some fundraising, and ignore the whole thing, and then you can show up on an internet forum and defend his lame ass?

Sorry, I don't see a benefit in that.

[logroller]

Oh brother. Sometimes people are given way too much credit for more intelligence than they have.

You wanna debate something intellectual? You pick the topic, I pick the side. loser is the first to commit a logical fallacy (Ad hominem attack, for example.)

[taft2012]

You wanna debate something intellectual? You pick the topic, I pick the side. loser is the first to commit a logical fallacy (Ad hominem attack, for example.)

Cool, you're on. The topic I selected:


Logroller applied one standard to me and a different one to Jafar on the same exact issue and thought he made some kind of salient brilliant point.

You go first....

[Voted4Reagan]

Of course you have the freedom of speech to do so. But you make it sound like you'd rather hide behind such a freedom, than explain why, as an American. You would wonder...other than due to lack of comprehension, or even suggest asking such a question.

That line above sounds almost like something Obama would say..to avoid actually committing himself to answering honestly.

My old friend... pay no attention to DilloDuck... his anti-semite side is showing more and more everyday...



Other then that.... he's the typical Troll who spouts his Pro-Palestinian Agenda just to get a reaction....

He most likely has no real feelings for them but because they cause controversy he uses them as a disruption...

So dont feed the DilloDuck Troll..... Ignore him

[tailfins]

My old friend... pay no attention to DilloDuck... his anti-semite side is showing more and more everyday...



Other then that.... he's the typical Troll who spouts his Pro-Palestinian Agenda just to get a reaction....

He most likely has no real feelings for them but because they cause controversy he uses them as a disruption...

So dont feed the DilloDuck Troll..... Ignore him


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ud1zKcAgD0

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A central point, surely, to Tyr's opening post is that Islam is a direct threat to YOUR COUNTRY, TO YOUR WAY OF LIFE, TO ALL YOU HOLD DEAR.

Bottom line: there is an enemy out there, and it's not a nice enemy. It won't just go away as a product of your wishful thinking !

That central point is being ignored in a foolishly held belief that ignoring it will show that we mean no harm. And in showing no harm meant the Islamists will cease and desist. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING could be further from the TRUTH! Islamists take that foolishness to be a very great weakness and in their world weaknesses are to be exploited to further their agenda. The socalled Religion of peace will use then abuse the socalled enlightened lib/leftist allies after getting what they want, aid in destroying our power and nation. Typical treachery , similiar to Hitler's use of the Soviet Union at WW2 started with the plans already prepared for turning on them at a well chosen time. Not to fear , the leftist allies intend the same treachery. Much like two bank robbers each planning on killing off the other to keep all the loot after successfully robbing the bank. Treachery begets further treachery...
The plan of ignoring to show no harm intended is childish and wishful thinking and extremely dangerous as well ! We have to not only fight the agenda of the Islamists but the agenda of our leftist/liberal/ dems that have aligned themselves with Islam for various reasons not the least of which is the desire to destroy the nation as it was founded and rebuild it as a socialist type paradise. The muslims are all for and in on the destroying part but plan on their own rebuilding project which they will force on their former allies only after they together destroy what exists here now!
A wicked web indeed but one that has been allowed to be birthed here and now is being furthered by bought out politicians! Obama being the top one! It was birthed long before obama stepped up for his coronation IMHO..-Tyr

[tailfins]

That central point is being ignored in a foolishly held belief that ignoring it will show that we mean no harm. And in showing no harm meant the Islamists will cease and desist. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING could be further from the TRUTH! Islamists take that foolishness to be a very great weakness and in their world weaknesses are to be exploited to further their agenda. The socalled Religion of peace will use then abuse the socalled enlightened lib/leftist allies after geting what they want, aid in destroying our power and nation. Typical treachery , similiar to Hitler's use of the Soviet Union at WW2 start with the plans already prepared for turning on them at a well chosen time. Not to fear , the leftist allies intend the same treachery. Much like two bank robbers each planning on kiling off the other to keep all the loot after successfully robbing the bank. Treachery begets further treachery...
The plan of ignoring to show no harm intended is childish and wishful thinking and extremely dangerous as well ! We have to not only fight the agenda of the Islamists but the agenda of our leftist/liberal/ dems that have aligned themselves with Islam for various reasons not the least of which is the desire to destroy the nation as it was founded and rebuild it in a socialist type paradise. The muslims are all for and in on the detroying part but plan on their own rebuilding project which they will force on their former allies only after they together destroy what exists here now!
A wicked web indeed but one that has been allowed to be birthed here and now is being furthered by bought out politicians! Obama being the top one! It was birthed long before obama stepped up for his coronation IMHO..-Tyr

However, we need to be careful not to do the equivalent of attacking China for Pearl Harbor.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

However, we need to be careful not to do the equivalent of attacking China for Pearl Harbor.

Sage advice. We must correctly and cleverly oppose the true and greatest enemy first, while dealing with others as needed in a well defined manner. We must not fire off a huge salvo just to watch the smoke clear to find that we only hit a stray bird flying by heading south for the winter. A false volley is surely a great folly and folly so often begets even greater folly.

[Dilloduck]

My old friend... pay no attention to DilloDuck... his anti-semite side is showing more and more everyday...



Other then that.... he's the typical Troll who spouts his Pro-Palestinian Agenda just to get a reaction....

He most likely has no real feelings for them but because they cause controversy he uses them as a disruption...

So dont feed the DilloDuck Troll..... Ignore him

A disruption ? Taking an opposing side in a debate is now a disruption ?
Or is that just your way of saying that you can't counter my arguments ?
Having everyone just agreeing with you is so much neater isn't it ?

[Abbey Marie]

How about some air between paragraphs? It looks to the eye like a long, run-on paragraph and turns the reader away from tackling it. I didn't read it for that reason.

It's a good suggestion. I agree that it's hard to read.

[tailfins]

A disruption ? Taking an opposing side in a debate is now a disruption ?
Or is that just your way of saying that you can't counter my arguments ?
Having everyone just agreeing with you is so much neater isn't it ?

Absolutely, especially if they use bullet points when they do it! Or better still do it in a Powerpoint presentation. You would be amazed how many ways an accomplished yes-man can agree with official policy. Regardless of point of view: A yes-man deserves ridicule.

[Abbey Marie]

Inspite of all your fears and proclamations the truth is that there is a war on terror being waged by the US right now. We have people watching and listening for this type of thing. Stop worrying.

So are you saying we probably knew from Intel what was going to happen in Libya, and did nothing? Or is our Intel actually not good enough to protect us?

[Dilloduck]

So are you saying we probably knew from Intel what was going to happen in Libya, and did nothing? Or is our Intel actually not good enough to protect us?

I think our Intel on threats to America is far better than our ability to predict what will happen daily in Africa but the truth is that there is no such thing as security. Crazy people will blow you away in a movie theater or college campus.

[logroller]

Cool, you're on. The topic I selected:



You go first....
ok.
i don't know what standard you are referencing, but I'll just agree with the premise: I did apply a different standard. Now refute it!

[Drummond]

The bottom line is the enemy is within yourself

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I have NO 'enemy within myself'.


preferring instead to oppress others under the auspices of self preservation.

-- Context intended ?

I'm taking this to mean .. and I'm far from sure I understand you properly .. that my anti-Islamic arguments are, in your mind, my efforts to 'oppress' them ?? If I'm getting this correctly, the suggestion is pure rot. In fact, the opposite is true, what we're dealing with in Islam is a force which, given the means to manage it, would oppress US, in the WEST. Or, do you think those Jihadist types who fight for it are really lovers of freedom ???


I am alive in spirit, my life reflects that and nobody can take that away unless I allow them to-- not you, not the police, not some terrorist.

I interpret your meaning in two ways. One, that no 'outside agency' can have a detrimental effect upon your spirit if you don't permit it, to which I say, 'whoopee' .. good for you. Of course, not everyone has that steadfastness to bolster them, though it's nice that you do. As for the second interpretation .. are you hinting at the immortality of your soul, saying effectively that terrorists cannot impact upon that ? Fair point if so .. but they CAN impact on your physical health (and that of others, as well ..) with things like bombs and bullets. I say ... why help them in the process, by taking a passive role ?

Has it occurred to you, Logroller, that people who only meet Islamic aggression with passivity are a terrorists' dream ? Could they actually WISH for anything better ??? Why, if they could ever be inclined to do so, I'm sure they'd put you on their Christmas card list in appreciation of your cooperation with them, as a way of saying 'thank you' for being such a good sport ... !!

... Moving on ...


That you see confident passivity as weak speaks to your own lack of confidence in your Beliefs.

Not a bit of it. Nope - nonsense. Passivity is passivity, and whether or not it's 'confident' doesn't exactly have much bearing on anything. A passive terrorist target .. and you make yourself into an ideal target, just by BEING passive !! .. is no less vulnerable to targeting, and where it leads, whether 'confident' or not.

But let's say we're not discussing terrorism, but instead the sneakier methods that Islamists use to make inroads. An indigenous population somehow filled with inner 'confidence', yet nonetheless remains passive while Islamists demand more and ever more deference to them, doesn't become any less victimised through having that confidence. It's the PASSIVITY that's the problem, because the passivity is totally and eminently exploitable !

Maybe YOU want to roll over and play dead for some passing Islamic invaders. How nice for you. But WHAT ABOUT YOUR COMPATRIOTS ? One passive individual is an individual who could potentially fight but chooses not to. With enough passive people around NOT resisting, the victory your enemies seek over you is assured.


Maybe that's why England's fucked; sorry ass blame gamers like yourself fuelin the policies that attempt to make up for your personal inadequacies...or perhaps your imperial cocks have come home to roost. Cheers!

This is interesting, because your language is quite aggressive, isn't it ? Now .. this makes me wonder if all this passivity of yours is merely skin deep, a contrivance, something you maintain as a pose .. when REALLY, you're as fired up with aggression as most other people who encounter adversarial situations and challenges !!

But to answer you more directly - sorry, you've got it backwards. I can tell you exactly how the UK got into its present state, quite easily. The truth is that we had LEFTIES in power, who came along with all their 'PC' doctrines, saying that everybody had to be totally accommodating to immigrants, and what they wanted from us. Do you know, a debate raged in certain circles as to whether even the CRITICISM of immigration was of itself automatically racist !!

So anyway, what happened ? Immigration rules were relaxed, and for a time we came to having open borders. So, what with that, along with an overly-generous benefits system (ALSO engineered by the Lefties), they came into the UK in droves, they moved into areas, congregated, set up their communities, and before you could say 'Osama bin Laden is a twisted git', whole communities had sprung up, absolutely NOT interested in integrating into the wider community. Far from it ... they made demand after demand, creating pressure groups for the purpose.

Laws were passed which they gained advantages from. EU law further supplemented the effect. So you see, Logroller, it was PASSIVITY IN THE FACE OF AN AGGRESSIVE GO-GETTING ISLAMIST ACTIVISM that made its inroads .. helped along by societal pressures crafted by the Left wing over an extended period to convince people that tolerance was the only civilised response to any and all of this.

So you see, Logroller, your passivity, so far from having a good effect, may become your very worst enemy. Tyr is grounded in reality, and his arguments reflect this. Yours, by contrast, amount to a dangerous escapism. One whose effect will delight any activist type who'll want to oppose you.

I'm sorry - but I'm calling this as I see it. I can't reasonably do otherwise.

[Dilloduck]

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I have NO 'enemy within myself'.



-- Context intended ?

I'm taking this to mean .. and I'm far from sure I understand you properly .. that my anti-Islamic arguments are, in your mind, my efforts to 'oppress' them ?? If I'm getting this correctly, the suggestion is pure rot. In fact, the opposite is true, what we're dealing with in Islam is a force which, given the means to manage it, would oppress US, in the WEST. Or, do you think those Jihadist types who fight for it are really lovers of freedom ???



I interpret your meaning in two ways. One, that no 'outside agency' can have a detrimental effect upon your spirit if you don't permit it, to which I say, 'whoopee' .. good for you. Of course, not everyone has that steadfastness to bolster them, though it's nice that you do. As for the second interpretation .. are you hinting at the immortality of your soul, saying effectively that terrorists cannot impact upon that ? Fair point if so .. but they CAN impact on your physical health (and that of others, as well ..) with things like bombs and bullets. I say ... why help them in the process, by taking a passive role ?

Has it occurred to you, Logroller, that people who only meet Islamic aggression with passivity are a terrorists' dream ? Could they actually WISH for anything better ??? Why, if they could ever be inclined to do so, I'm sure they'd put you on their Christmas card list in appreciation of your cooperation with them, as a way of saying 'thank you' for being such a good sport ... !!

... Moving on ...



Not a bit of it. Nope - nonsense. Passivity is passivity, and whether or not it's 'confident' doesn't exactly have much bearing on anything. A passive terrorist target .. and you make yourself into an ideal target, just by BEING passive !! .. is no less vulnerable to targeting, and where it leads, whether 'confident' or not.

But let's say we're not discussing terrorism, but instead the sneakier methods that Islamists use to make inroads. An indigenous population somehow filled with inner 'confidence', yet nonetheless remains passive while Islamists demand more and ever more deference to them, doesn't become any less victimised through having that confidence. It's the PASSIVITY that's the problem, because the passivity is totally and eminently exploitable !

Maybe YOU want to roll over and play dead for some passing Islamic invaders. How nice for you. But WHAT ABOUT YOUR COMPATRIOTS ? One passive individual is an individual who could potentially fight but chooses not to. With enough passive people around NOT resisting, the victory your enemies seek over you is assured.



This is interesting, because your language is quite aggressive, isn't it ? Now .. this makes me wonder if all this passivity of yours is merely skin deep, a contrivance, something you maintain as a pose .. when REALLY, you're as fired up with aggression as most other people who encounter adversarial situations and challenges !!

But to answer you more directly - sorry, you've got it backwards. I can tell you exactly how the UK got into its present state, quite easily. The truth is that we had LEFTIES in power, who came along with all their 'PC' doctrines, saying that everybody had to be totally accommodating to immigrants, and what they wanted from us. Do you know, a debate raged in certain circles as to whether even the CRITICISM of immigration was of itself automatically racist !!

So anyway, what happened ? Immigration rules were relaxed, and for a time we came to having open borders. So, what with that, along with an overly-generous benefits system (ALSO engineered by the Lefties), they came into the UK in droves, they moved into areas, congregated, set up their communities, and before you could say 'Osama bin Laden is a twisted git', whole communities had sprung up, absolutely NOT interested in integrating into the wider community. Far from it ... they made demand after demand, creating pressure groups for the purpose.

Laws were passed which they gained advantages from. EU law further supplemented the effect. So you see, Logroller, it was PASSIVITY IN THE FACE OF AN AGGRESSIVE GO-GETTING ISLAMIST ACTIVISM that made its inroads .. helped along by societal pressures crafted by the Left wing over an extended period to convince people that tolerance was the only civilised response to any and all of this.

So you see, Logroller, your passivity, so far from having a good effect, may become your very worst enemy. Tyr is grounded in reality, and his arguments reflect this. Yours, by contrast, amount to a dangerous escapism. One whose effect will delight any activist type who'll want to oppose you.

I'm sorry - but I'm calling this as I see it. I can't reasonably do otherwise.

You don't know the difference between calming drawing the line and surrendering.

[Drummond]

Hey drummond, I don't recall that challenge; but it's loaded. How does the bible, specifically the new testament instruct us to combat evil and sin? Is it through violence?

Talking of 'loaded', I note you want to weight your argument so that only one part of the Bible gets to be used.

... No bias there, then ...

Of course, you loaded this in your preferred way because you consider that the New Testament better serves you than the Old Testament. Don't worry - I see where you're coming from in this. It's understandable, although you're somewhat guilty of 'cherry-picking' to suit yourself.

Let me offer you this link >

http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm

I'm 'sorry' to say that it dwells upon references to the Old Testament. But it's all interesting stuff, nonetheless. I don't propose to post great chunks of this here .. it's a rather lengthy piece in total .. but still, I shall quote a couple of interesting pieces. Check these out ...


We in America and throughout the world are now in a time of WAR.

Does the Bible forbid or encourage us to defend ourselves, or to go to war against an enemy? This is one of the more controversial and difficult subjects to settle as Christians. I know that none of us will agree on all aspects of this subject but there is much to consider.

Are we allowed to defend ourselves and family against attackers or enemies? The Old Testament teaches that it is right to use force in order to restrain evil and wickedness in the world. It is also allowable to defend a nation and ones family. When we come to the New Testament it is not as clear. What is clear is that the Bible does not teach pacifism, we have numerous examples to defend ourselves against evil-- personally, and for others.

As I said, I can understand your desire to cherry-pick as you have.

Still, I think you'll find this interesting ...


The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would seem to imply that Christians should not resist an evil person. If you are slapped on one cheek give them the other. But this means not retaliate when insulted or slandered (Romans 12:17-21). Insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The idea of rendering insult for insult, is not the same as defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist, or someone that wants to kill you or a loved one. We are to preserve life, this is a principle carried over from the Old Testament. The use of physical force to protect or defend another is not an alternative but a command.

We protect our children from drug dealers and pedophiles and all other sort of lowlifes. We lock our doors of our homes. We are to be vigilant against evil and take precautions to prevent it. We will keep our car keys on our person, we do not leave them in the ignition switch saying I have trust. We do what we can so we do not become sick. We do preventative measures for our safety.

If we watch someone steal something and do not speak up or we know of a crime we could prevent, we are complicit to the crime. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. To permit a murder to take place when we could have done something to prevent it is ethically wrong. If we fail to use force to protect another whom is confronted with evil we are in fact failing to show love toward them. It would instead be sin to sit by idly and watch another harm physical harm perpetrated on them when it can be avoided or prevented by force. Not resisting evil is a sin of omission, and a sin of omission can bring the same result as one committing evil. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails in his moral obligation.

Is violence never a justified act? What of self-defense? Do we stand by and watch someone being abused or physically threatened with harm?

We are to pursue peace, but tolerance, finding compromise condoning criminal activity or withholding punishment does not lead to peace. It is the greatest act of love to sacrifice your life to protect the innocent, to defend their freedom against oppressors when they can’t. Self-sacrifice is part of the definition of agape? But what about sacrificing one self for the enemy? This is what Jesus did. We were all enemies before we became friends.

Jesus is known for His teaching on love, compassion, forgiveness, and “not to return evil for evil” But we find Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword, and it is clear that Jesus advocated the use of a sword for self-defense purposes. Jesus tells the disciples to buy a sword if he has none vs.38 they showed they had two, he said this is enough. So he is not telling them to arm themselves, lest they trust in man and not God. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) that is used is a dagger or short sword that was part of the Jews traveler's equipment for protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of conditional self-defense. These were small daggers to protect someone from the criminals they would encounter as they traveled, they were used for close combat, for self defense, they were also to use against a wild animal

Now you tell me. How much evidence do you see of 'passivity' in any of this ?

Has it occurred to you that what's at issue IS self defence ? Defence against activism designed to demolish your way of life, to make all the inroads into it that can be managed. Now, you can defend against that, or you can just be passive, whether 'confidently' or not. But as I've just shown you, acting in self preservation is FINE from a Christian standpoint.


In the Ten Commandments, God did not say, “You shall not kill” but, “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17). This specifically refers to premeditated murder and is never used of executing a criminal or slaying an enemy in battle. God would then be contradicting himself when he told them to give just punishment.

The teachings about the use of force found in the Old and New Testaments are not in opposition but each focuses on when, and how. For example, both the Old and New Covenants teach that it is proper to use force in order to restrain evil and wickedness in the world, as well as for the defense of a nation.

I hope you're taking notes, Logroller.


In regard to protecting ourselves from crime and our nation from foreign aggression, force is allowed by both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament (Genesis 14), when Abraham's nephew Lot was kidnapped by Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam, Abraham gathered 318 trained men of his household to rescue Lot. Ex 17:9 And Moses said to Joshua, "Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek. 1 Samuel 17:45 Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.

The Bible does not teach pacifism; pacifists often misuse verses that apply to the defending of the faith and ignore the context, which has nothing to do with defenses against evildoers and national aggression.


The New Testament does not make it absolutely clear in prohibiting all self-defense, or to protect others from harm. It appears to me that we are allowed to take different positions, depending on our conscience sake and the situation at the time.

Matthew 10:21-22. Jesus told his disciples, and other believers, they would be hated and killed because of the gospel, even by their own family. He didn’t specifically mention running away to protect themselves-- but he also didn't say not to. He instructed the disciples in Matthew 10:23 if you are persecuted in one place, his disciples were to flee to another. When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, the rest of the verse reveals that it was not literal but meant a division for those who follow and those who do not.

Christians and non Christians should not disarm, allowing despots, totalitarian governments to take over and enslave millions. This becomes an issue of self defense, and not sitting by idly while others are slaughtered or enslaved, it is not an issue of faith. Certain individuals, religious groups, countries are intent on domination and abusing others. Maintaining peace is sometimes impossible without having a strong defense. A nation as a whole cannot turn the other cheek, as Romans 13 says the government does not bear the sword in vain to those who do evil.

The entire site I've quoted from is devoted to a pro-Christian message, Logroller, but those running it are clear in a position which is a lot more in line with Tyr's own than yours. They are clear that the Bible sanctions the defence of a nation against aggressive enemies .. and Islamists, especially the most active of them, certainly qualify !

But still ... as I said, I can see why you wanted to favour the New Testament over the Old, because you wanted, as you hoped, to skew things in your favour, Either tell me that the Old Testament isn't a legitimate part of Bible teachings, or, Logroller, accept that you have some real problems with your 'passivity' role.

[Drummond]

Logroller, just letting you know that I've quickly scanned your answer to me in post #87, which I note to be a SECOND answer to an older post of mine. I'm supposing that you added a second reply because you weren't satisfied with your first one.

I think I'll be getting bogged down with repeating myself if I bother with a detailed reply, and I've been quite detailed enough already .. especially considering that all this is straying (AGAIN) from ISLAM as an issue, as Tyr intended !!!

I just wanted, though, to reflect on your choice of BERTRAND RUSSELL (!!!) AS SOMEONE TO CONSIDER FOR REFERENCE. You surely know that he was a celebrated atheist ??

That amused me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I have NO 'enemy within myself'.



-- Context intended ?

I'm taking this to mean .. and I'm far from sure I understand you properly .. that my anti-Islamic arguments are, in your mind, my efforts to 'oppress' them ?? If I'm getting this correctly, the suggestion is pure rot. In fact, the opposite is true, what we're dealing with in Islam is a force which, given the means to manage it, would oppress US, in the WEST. Or, do you think those Jihadist types who fight for it are really lovers of freedom ???



I interpret your meaning in two ways. One, that no 'outside agency' can have a detrimental effect upon your spirit if you don't permit it, to which I say, 'whoopee' .. good for you. Of course, not everyone has that steadfastness to bolster them, though it's nice that you do. As for the second interpretation .. are you hinting at the immortality of your soul, saying effectively that terrorists cannot impact upon that ? Fair point if so .. but they CAN impact on your physical health (and that of others, as well ..) with things like bombs and bullets. I say ... why help them in the process, by taking a passive role ?

Has it occurred to you, Logroller, that people who only meet Islamic aggression with passivity are a terrorists' dream ? Could they actually WISH for anything better ??? Why, if they could ever be inclined to do so, I'm sure they'd put you on their Christmas card list in appreciation of your cooperation with them, as a way of saying 'thank you' for being such a good sport ... !!

... Moving on ...



Not a bit of it. Nope - nonsense. Passivity is passivity, and whether or not it's 'confident' doesn't exactly have much bearing on anything. A passive terrorist target .. and you make yourself into an ideal target, just by BEING passive !! .. is no less vulnerable to targeting, and where it leads, whether 'confident' or not.

But let's say we're not discussing terrorism, but instead the sneakier methods that Islamists use to make inroads. An indigenous population somehow filled with inner 'confidence', yet nonetheless remains passive while Islamists demand more and ever more deference to them, doesn't become any less victimised through having that confidence. It's the PASSIVITY that's the problem, because the passivity is totally and eminently exploitable !

Maybe YOU want to roll over and play dead for some passing Islamic invaders. How nice for you. But WHAT ABOUT YOUR COMPATRIOTS ? One passive individual is an individual who could potentially fight but chooses not to. With enough passive people around NOT resisting, the victory your enemies seek over you is assured.



This is interesting, because your language is quite aggressive, isn't it ? Now .. this makes me wonder if all this passivity of yours is merely skin deep, a contrivance, something you maintain as a pose .. when REALLY, you're as fired up with aggression as most other people who encounter adversarial situations and challenges !!

But to answer you more directly - sorry, you've got it backwards. I can tell you exactly how the UK got into its present state, quite easily. The truth is that we had LEFTIES in power, who came along with all their 'PC' doctrines, saying that everybody had to be totally accommodating to immigrants, and what they wanted from us. Do you know, a debate raged in certain circles as to whether even the CRITICISM of immigration was of itself automatically racist !!

So anyway, what happened ? Immigration rules were relaxed, and for a time we came to having open borders. So, what with that, along with an overly-generous benefits system (ALSO engineered by the Lefties), they came into the UK in droves, they moved into areas, congregated, set up their communities, and before you could say 'Osama bin Laden is a twisted git', whole communities had sprung up, absolutely NOT interested in integrating into the wider community. Far from it ... they made demand after demand, creating pressure groups for the purpose.

Laws were passed which they gained advantages from. EU law further supplemented the effect. So you see, Logroller, it was PASSIVITY IN THE FACE OF AN AGGRESSIVE GO-GETTING ISLAMIST ACTIVISM that made its inroads .. helped along by societal pressures crafted by the Left wing over an extended period to convince people that tolerance was the only civilised response to any and all of this.

So you see, Logroller, your passivity, so far from having a good effect, may become your very worst enemy. Tyr is grounded in reality, and his arguments reflect this. Yours, by contrast, amount to a dangerous escapism. One whose effect will delight any activist type who'll want to oppose you.

I'm sorry - but I'm calling this as I see it. I can't reasonably do otherwise.

Interesting is it not that Log preaches a passive defense ,if any at all , when it's our objections to being victimsed by Islam and its Jihadists but when it comes to you and I personally speaking out against that savagery he lets loose with such aggressive little accusations and seems to lose that ever so passive nature he previously cherished and magnificently lauded mere moments before.. In addition I have never read a post by Log exspressing such anger spewed forth against murdering terrorist scum yet against our words of righteous defiance this man clearly looses it sometimes! Perhaps his faith sustains him but his desire to see others die with him while he fearlessly preaches "let them do their damndest against me for my spirit and confidence in my faith shall not be broken " has in it an apparent absolute lack of concern for others, women and children included! He may wish to passively die without oppposing such murdering vermin but his proposition that others should do so as well reeks of arrogance and selfish motives based upon what source I havent a clue. One could possibly admire some of what he preaches if it were not his attitude that others are wrong in wanting and choosing to fight back against such evil! That conveys an utter contempt for those with less faith and more desire to live an earthly life free from oppression and murder by muslim terrorists enforcing Sharia law. In short, he projects his faith in a magnificently contempteous manner and attempts to belittle others for lack of faith and having a hearty lust for earthly life. Such obvious contempt points plainly to arrogance IMHO. I'm sure that he will deny it and may even do so sincerely but that does not in itself disprove it , being that actions and reality are far greater than perception alone no matter how strong that illusion may be.
ISLAM YIELDS TO NOTHING, ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THAT AND ALL DEFENSE OF IT FALLS INTO THE TRASHHEAP.-AS DOES ALL CRIES TO IGNORE OR APPEASE IT!!! Tyr

[logroller]

Talking of 'loaded', I note you want to weight your argument so that only one part of the Bible gets to be used.

... No bias there, then ...

Of course, you loaded this in your preferred way because you consider that the New Testament better serves you than the Old Testament. Don't worry - I see where you're coming from in this. It's understandable, although you're somewhat guilty of 'cherry-picking' to suit yourself.

Let me offer you this link >

http://www.letusreason.org/doct40.htm

I'm 'sorry' to say that it dwells upon references to the Old Testament. But it's all interesting stuff, nonetheless. I don't propose to post great chunks of this here .. it's a rather lengthy piece in total .. but still, I shall quote a couple of interesting pieces. Check these out ...



As I said, I can understand your desire to cherry-pick as you have.

Still, I think you'll find this interesting ...



Now you tell me. How much evidence do you see of 'passivity' in any of this ?

Has it occurred to you that what's at issue IS self defence ? Defence against activism designed to demolish your way of life, to make all the inroads into it that can be managed. Now, you can defend against that, or you can just be passive, whether 'confidently' or not. But as I've just shown you, acting in self preservation is FINE from a Christian standpoint.



I hope you're taking notes, Logroller.





The entire site I've quoted from is devoted to a pro-Christian message, Logroller, but those running it are clear in a position which is a lot more in line with Tyr's own than yours. They are clear that the Bible sanctions the defence of a nation against aggressive enemies .. and Islamists, especially the most active of them, certainly qualify !

But still ... as I said, I can see why you wanted to favour the New Testament over the Old, because you wanted, as you hoped, to skew things in your favour, Either tell me that the Old Testament isn't a legitimate part of Bible teachings, or, Logroller, accept that you have some real problems with your 'passivity' role.
I Favor the new testament sir because I am Christian; that When there is conflict between the Old and New, I follow the New instruction. Just as i woukdnt expect a jew or a muslim to heed the new testament, perhaps I cannot expect you to either; but that does not diminish what is the fundamental tenet of Christianity: forgiveness. Though I especially liked your reference to Matthew 5, let us continue down that tract.

Matthew 26:
52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelvelegions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”
You Remind me of those who mocked Jesus on the cross to use his power to free Himself. He forgave them as I forgive you. For you know not what you do. Thine enemy is within yourself, that incarnate propensity to sin-- it's the ugly stepchild of free will. There's no excuse for it, but there is a path to salvation-- I know Him as the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If you believe in Him, ask yourself, what would Jesus do? Take up a sword? Do you know Jesus as those who claim to know Muhammed, claiming jihad of the sword against the infidels? It's been done before during the crusades; with papal dispensation for violating Christian principles. Thought we'd been reformed though, Tyr even said so. Great advances to civilization were made possible through that reform; I see it as you, just like fanatical Islamic hadith, seek to ignore one's core beliefs when faced with a trial of faith when it suits some practical carnal interest-- that's not true faith. I can't tell you what's right for you, any more than you can I. But i can tell you the way of the sword has led to far more persecution, death and just all-round evil than Christ ever did.

Answer me this, is it better to be persecutor despite your beliefs or persecuted because of them?

[Abbey Marie]

I think our Intel on threats to America is far better than our ability to predict what will happen daily in Africa but the truth is that there is no such thing as security. Crazy people will blow you away in a movie theater or college campus.

Hence the need for worry. But surely you would agree that we should protect ourselves whenever and pretty much however we can?

[Dilloduck]

Hence the need for worry. But surely you would agree that we should protect ourselves whenever and pretty much however we can?

To worry or not is up to each individual or not, I guess. Some resort to faith, some resort to other forms of comfort. I'll make an attempt to secure those I care about up to a point but somewhere a decision has to be made about reasonable uses of time and resources.
Right now America spends by far the most money on defense yet who is the country that is suffering from terrorist attacks ?
I think it's entirely possible to spend so much energy on being safe that you harm yourself.

[logroller]

Interesting is it not that Log preaches a passive defense ,if any at all , when it's our objections to being victimsed by Islam and its Jihadists but when it comes to you and I personally speaking out against that savagery he lets loose with such aggressive little accusations and seems to lose that ever so passive nature he previously cherished and magnificently lauded mere moments before.. In addition I have never read a post by Log exspressing such anger spewed forth against murdering terrorist scum yet against our words of righteous defiance this man clearly looses it sometimes! Perhaps his faith sustains him but his desire to see others die with him while he fearlessly preaches "let them do their damndest against me for my spirit and confidence in my faith shall not be broken " has in it an apparent absolute lack of concern for others, women and children included! He may wish to passively die without oppposing such murdering vermin but his proposition that others should do so as well reeks of arrogance and selfish motives based upon what source I havent a clue. One could possibly admire some of what he preaches if it were not his attitude that others are wrong in wanting and choosing to fight back against such evil! That conveys an utter contempt for those with less faith and more desire to live an earthly life free from oppression and murder by muslim terrorists enforcing Sharia law. In short, he projects his faith in a magnificently contempteous manner and attempts to belittle others for lack of faith and having a hearty lust for earthly life. Such obvious contempt points plainly to arrogance IMHO. I'm sure that he will deny it and may even do so sincerely but that does not in itself disprove it , being that actions and reality are far greater than perception alone no matter how strong that illusion may be.
ISLAM YIELDS TO NOTHING, ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THAT AND ALL DEFENSE OF IT FALLS INTO THE TRASHHEAP.-AS DOES ALL CRIES TO IGNORE OR APPEASE IT!!! Tyr
Never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven. But my actions, even those of sin, do not disprove the instruction of Jesus, do they? Attack me for my trespasses if you will, but such doesn't make your trespasses acceptable. A sin is a sin is a sin. Despite my failures, I attempt to turn away from sins...you promote them with an evil tongue. I see why you hate Islam, they'd kill you for it. I merely curse you, but you're right, I shouldnt and i thank you for pointing that out and humbly beg your forgiveness.

[taft2012]

ok.
i don't know what standard you are referencing, but I'll just agree with the premise: I did apply a different standard. Now refute it!

Admitting you're a self-conflicting jabber-head? How can I possibly refute it? You win.

[Drummond]

Never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven. But my actions, even those of sin, do not disprove the instruction of Jesus, do they? Attack me for my trespasses if you will, but such doesn't make your trespasses acceptable. A sin is a sin is a sin. Despite my failures, I attempt to turn away from sins...you promote them with an evil tongue. I see why you hate Islam, they'd kill you for it. I merely curse you, but you're right, I shouldnt and i thank you for pointing that out and humbly beg your forgiveness.

Not quite sure how literally to take your message, but, Logroller, at least you are willing to make progress.

None of us is free from sin .. we cannot be. But I'd like to hope that you can build on what progress your message to Tyr indicates, and see that pride can blind you to truth.

I think you approach your 'passive' stance as something to take pride in. Am I right ? And if so, is that pride a good thing ? If NOT ... and surely you must agree that such pride is wrong ... then where is it leading you ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Never claimed to be perfect, just forgiven. But my actions, even those of sin, do not disprove the instruction of Jesus, do they? Attack me for my trespasses if you will, but such doesn't make your trespasses acceptable. A sin is a sin is a sin. Despite my failures, I attempt to turn away from sins...you promote them with an evil tongue. I see why you hate Islam, they'd kill you for it. I merely curse you, but you're right, I shouldnt and i thank you for pointing that out and humbly beg your forgiveness.

I can only take this post as a sincere effort to try to reach amends of sort. I asked for no request for forgiveness from you. Instead I sought an understanding. One in which you acknowledge that other people's lives when being so terribly threatened are not to be included in your wish to just let the Lord handle it with their objections to that ridiculed as inferior and shallow! We are not talking abstract ideals here but rather real lives , a very real and terrible threat and man's God given right to defend himself, his family and his nation.
I have absolutely no wish to be responsible for granting forgiveness to you when your error was to your own self and your faith IMHO. Surely it is enough that you have seen and come to a conclusion that you should ask it. The gesture made to make amends was enough for me to grant it had I the ability but I do not. That is not my responsibility nor do I have the authority as I see it. Simply because your asking should be to the Saviour not to me. I am just a tired old sinner myself, guilty of letting lose my anger far too often and with far too much spirit. Far more guilty of said transgressions than you!
However to show no hard feelings I will take second seat and accept the offer to make amends in the spirit in which it was given..
I am sure we shall disagree in the future but thats another day., another battle and sharpen your blade because I keep mine razor sharp just in case.-;)-Tyr

[Drummond]

I Favor the new testament sir because I am Christian; that When there is conflict between the Old and New, I follow the New instruction. Just as i woukdnt expect a jew or a muslim to heed the new testament, perhaps I cannot expect you to either; but that does not diminish what is the fundamental tenet of Christianity: forgiveness.

Then let me ask you if you can point to anything which clearly instructs Christians to actually DISMISS, or REJECT, the Old Testament outright.

The logic of your position must surely be just that ? Is a hefty chunk of the entire Bible redundant, in your eyes ?? Should it be excised from the Bible as a whole ?

Now .. I call that cherrypicking with a vengeance !!


Though I especially liked your reference to Matthew 5, let us continue down that tract.

You Remind me of those who mocked Jesus on the cross to use his power to free Himself. He forgave them as I forgive you.

Why, how very nice of you !!

But let me ask: how's that pride coming along ?


For you know not what you do. Thine enemy is within yourself, that incarnate propensity to sin-- it's the ugly stepchild of free will. There's no excuse for it, but there is a path to salvation-- I know Him as the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If you believe in Him, ask yourself, what would Jesus do? Take up a sword?

Not 'take up' a sword, no ... though, to quote again from my link ...


When Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword, the rest of the verse reveals that it was not literal ..

He did at least toy with the idea, it seems.

But the link makes clear: using weapons to defend one's family, to defend one's nation, these are NOT off-limits. You merely choose to think so, from what I can see.

From a fairly obvious (.. I'd have thought ..) 20th century example .. consider World War II, and all that Hitler did. Consider, in 1940, the UK stood alone, with the prospect of a German invasion expected daily. Now, if Winston Churchill had chosen to be 'confidently passive' and lead accordingly, Hitler would've quickly understood that he could successfully invade us. And he'd have done so, and the evil that was the Third Reich would've grown yet further, despotically ruling with all of its cruelties, killing whatever Jews they could lay their hands on, no doubt. There would've doubtless been a British dimension to the Holocaust .. and instead of the 6 million Jews slaughtered, HOW MANY MORE ? SEVEN MILLION ? TEN MILLION ???

Consider the lack of passivity involved in the Normandy Landings, Logroller. Consider how devoid of passivity the reclaiming of conquered countries was !! BUT, without such actions, Hitler's Reich would've stood unopposed, continuing to murder more and more people. That figure of six million dead, Logroller, would most certainly have grown greater.

To have remained passive in spite of all of that would've been disastrous. How can you POSSIBLY conclude that its effect wouldn't have been to let evil triumph over good ??

Getting the picture yet, Logroller ?


Do you know Jesus as those who claim to know Muhammed, claiming jihad of the sword against the infidels? It's been done before during the crusades; with papal dispensation for violating Christian principles. Thought we'd been reformed though, Tyr even said so. Great advances to civilization were made possible through that reform; I see it as you, just like fanatical Islamic hadith, seek to ignore one's core beliefs when faced with a trial of faith when it suits some practical carnal interest-- that's not true faith. I can't tell you what's right for you, any more than you can I. But i can tell you the way of the sword has led to far more persecution, death and just all-round evil than Christ ever did.

A pretty speech. But my answer to you is just above your quote.

You need to understand that, your way, you let evil triumph. And in all honesty, I think that it's personal pride in the stance you take which is preventing you from seeing truths which contravene your prideful preaching.


Answer me this, is it better to be persecutor despite your beliefs or persecuted because of them?

A loaded question ?

I am no persecutor. That is not my position, nor is it Tyr's, I'm sure. If you think otherwise, you've closed your mind to what we've both been trying to say.

Here's the reality. Islam is arrogant. It craves universal dominion, and as the actions of its adherents - backed up by Islamic teachings - prove, they'll stop at nothing to get their way.

Successful Islamic dominion would be the death of freedoms which we hold to be dear to all that we are. Sharia Law, with all its cruelties, would blight human existence on Earth. No doubt, along the way, Hitler's hoped-for extermination of the Jews would be completed.

And, for WHY ? Because, Logroller, it would have been PERMITTED TO HAPPEN .. IF PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU SHOW SUFFICIENT PASSIVITY INSTEAD OF THE NECESSARY RESISTANCE.

Now move one step further on, and answer me this ...

Isn't it better to kill an evil, rather than allow its victory ?

Doctors don't approach aggressive cancers with totally 'passive' treatments, Logroller, nor do they opt, if they can help it, just to stave off the worst effects short of a cure. No, their mandate is clear ... as healers, their duty is to KILL the INVADING ORGANISM .. since nothing else will do !!

[logroller]

Not quite sure how literally to take your message, but, Logroller, at least you are willing to make progress.

None of us is free from sin .. we cannot be. But I'd like to hope that you can build on what progress your message to Tyr indicates, and see that pride can blind you to truth.

I think you approach your 'passive' stance as something to take pride in. Am I right ? And if so, is that pride a good thing ? If NOT ... and surely you must agree that such pride is wrong ... then where is it leading you ?

Literally? As opposed to figurative?

Most progress comes from failure. The global supremacy of the West is failing. I'm not talking about bombs and bullets but, rather, ethical truth. We have distanced ourselves from the wholesome values which brought us such greatness during the early/mid 20th century. Worked out great until the dictatorships we installed began failing and the trained fanatical terrorist we now face turned upon the hand that fed them. (not literally, we gave them weapons and training). I take no pride in that. No pride at all. If I was to pursue pride I'd pander to the crowd, shower the world with passionate calls for mutual and necessary defense of self, us or them, now or never, live or die...pretty much any rhetoric to distract me from the culpability We, (our govts, really) share in creating something which ended up biting us in the...assuredly I'd have an easier go and far less grief.

All I'm saying is being prideful isn't really my MO. (If you must know, its gluttony)

Who gets more resistance here, you or I, and why is that? It could be I'm wrong, but then all that I believe in, my faith in God and Christ is wrong. If that be the case, then are not our western values, having petitioned to divine providence, wrong too?

Look to the history of great civilizations and their fall, and in most every case it was a distancing from their core values. Political expedience took priority over faithful service. So I must ask, do you believe the West is righteous in the eyes of God?

I don't think we are. I don't think Islamic terrorists are either. But they do appear to trying, just failing, as would anyone who believe God's wrath is to be applied by man. But there will be progress from that failure; those who live by love, will spread their love; those who live by the sword will die the sword. I hope to play a role in that progress as a beacon of love, and not the antithesis of religions' outdated pervasions of bloodlust.

[Missileman]

Then let me ask you if you can point to anything which clearly instructs Christians to actually DISMISS, or REJECT, the Old Testament outright.

The logic of your position must surely be just that ? Is a hefty chunk of the entire Bible redundant, in your eyes ?? Should it be excised from the Bible as a whole ?

Now .. I call that cherrypicking with a vengeance !!



Why, how very nice of you !!

But let me ask: how's that pride coming along ?



Not 'take up' a sword, no ... though, to quote again from my link ...



He did at least toy with the idea, it seems.

But the link makes clear: using weapons to defend one's family, to defend one's nation, these are NOT off-limits. You merely choose to think so, from what I can see.

From a fairly obvious (.. I'd have thought ..) 20th century example .. consider World War II, and all that Hitler did. Consider, in 1940, the UK stood alone, with the prospect of a German invasion expected daily. Now, if Winston Churchill had chosen to be 'confidently passive' and lead accordingly, Hitler would've quickly understood that he could successfully invade us. And he'd have done so, and the evil that was the Third Reich would've grown yet further, despotically ruling with all of its cruelties, killing whatever Jews they could lay their hands on, no doubt. There would've doubtless been a British dimension to the Holocaust .. and instead of the 6 million Jews slaughtered, HOW MANY MORE ? SEVEN MILLION ? TEN MILLION ???

Consider the lack of passivity involved in the Normandy Landings, Logroller. Consider how devoid of passivity the reclaiming of conquered countries was !! BUT, without such actions, Hitler's Reich would've stood unopposed, continuing to murder more and more people. That figure of six million dead, Logroller, would most certainly have grown greater.

To have remained passive in spite of all of that would've been disastrous. How can you POSSIBLY conclude that its effect wouldn't have been to let evil triumph over good ??

Getting the picture yet, Logroller ?



A pretty speech. But my answer to you is just above your quote.

You need to understand that, your way, you let evil triumph. And in all honesty, I think that it's personal pride in the stance you take which is preventing you from seeing truths which contravene your prideful preaching.



A loaded question ?

I am no persecutor. That is not my position, nor is it Tyr's, I'm sure. If you think otherwise, you've closed your mind to what we've both been trying to say.

Here's the reality. Islam is arrogant. It craves universal dominion, and as the actions of its adherents - backed up by Islamic teachings - prove, they'll stop at nothing to get their way.

Successful Islamic dominion would be the death of freedoms which we hold to be dear to all that we are. Sharia Law, with all its cruelties, would blight human existence on Earth. No doubt, along the way, Hitler's hoped-for extermination of the Jews would be completed.

And, for WHY ? Because, Logroller, it would have been PERMITTED TO HAPPEN .. IF PEOPLE SUCH AS YOU SHOW SUFFICIENT PASSIVITY INSTEAD OF THE NECESSARY RESISTANCE.

Now move one step further on, and answer me this ...

Isn't it better to kill an evil, rather than allow its victory ?

Doctors don't approach aggressive cancers with totally 'passive' treatments, Logroller, nor do they opt, if they can help it, just to stave off the worst effects short of a cure. No, their mandate is clear ... as healers, their duty is to KILL the INVADING ORGANISM .. since nothing else will do !!

Your post, as well as several others in this thread, begs the question: What if they are right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your post, as well as several others in this thread, begs the question: What if they are right?

Islam teaches that man can create/earn his own salvation by deeds, by blind obedience not by --faith repenting and asking for forgiveness then accepting it as the gift, a blessing given from God thru Jesus his son.
Islam also teaches that murder is right. That enslavement is right.
They are not right, my vote on it. You are welcome to yours. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Islam teaches that man can create/earn his own salvation by deeds, by blind obedience not by --faith repenting and asking for forgiveness then accepting it as the gift, a blessing given from God thru Jesus his son.
Islam also teaches that murder is right. That enslavement is right.
They are not right, my vote on it. You are welcome to yours. -Tyr

Exactly, Tyr.

The notion that Islam could possibly be right is ludicrous.

If they're right, then what we believe in must be wrong. Freedom is wrong ? Valuing life is wrong ? Sheer decency is wrong ?

Terrorism, presumably, is a JUST act ??!!???? 9/11 was 'right and proper' ???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Exactly, Tyr.

The notion that Islam could possibly be right is ludicrous.

If they're right, then what we believe in must be wrong. Freedom is wrong ? Valuing life is wrong ? Sheer decency is wrong ?

Terrorism, presumably, is a JUST act ??!!???? 9/11 was 'right and proper' ???

Surely America has lost its way but that gives no credibilty to Islam. It is however a great weakness that Islam seeks to exploit. America still is by and large as ignorant about Islam's true nature as are gorillas knowing about rocket science. Still gullible enough to by and large buy into the great lie that it is a religion of peace. And buy into it with all the massive evidence refuting that lie. 19,000+ Islamic terrorist attacks and counting still the lie exists and is widely accepted..
Also where has been Islam muslim defenders on this thread ? Have I missed their brilliant refutation of my opening composition? Too much truth is hard to go up against. America is under attack here and now! CAIR and other muslim groups are active doing just that. We are stil to powerful, they are playing it slower and safer here than they did in Britain my friend, we are armed with the Constitution, a much harder nut to crack.--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Forrest---trees. :laugh2:

[Missileman]

Islam teaches that man can create/earn his own salvation by deeds, by blind obedience not by --faith repenting and asking for forgiveness then accepting it as the gift, a blessing given from God thru Jesus his son.
Islam also teaches that murder is right. That enslavement is right.
They are not right, my vote on it. You are welcome to yours. -Tyr

It appears the point escaped you.

I'm also reasonably certain that the veracity of any given religion isn't determined by a vote.

Whether Islam, Christianity, or neither is correct is not dependent on what you believe.

[Missileman]

If they're right, then what we believe in must be wrong.

Ding Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Look, I'm not saying they're right, only that the possibility that they are is just as likely as the possibility that you are.

[fj1200]

Of what good is peace if it is bought at the cost of sacrificing all that we hold dear? There is a great failure in our country today and that is the failure to understand total submission. What total submission is and how it could lead to our demise. The greatest example of total submission today is Islam. Yes, Islam is the essence of total submission and it demands that not only from its followers but also from all that it confronts.

Wow, is this broken record still playing?

[gabosaurus]

Wow, is this broken record still playing?

It keeps skipping. :laugh:

Everyone who has strong beliefs thinks they are right. The fundamentalists believe they are right because that is all they have ever been taught. They live in a society of controlled thought. There is no other side.
The only truly enlightened people are those who acknowledge the existence of both sides. If you close off your mind and only consider one side, what makes you any better than a terrorist?
If this confuses you, forget it and go back to watching wrestling on TV.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It appears the point escaped you.

I'm also reasonably certain that the veracity of any given religion isn't determined by a vote.

Whether Islam, Christianity, or neither is correct is not dependent on what you believe.

TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS IF NONE BELIEVE IT OR ALL BELIEVE IT.
However I get to decide what I believe is true , as do we all. Since it was obvious that I was not casting an actual ballot but rather speaking of my belief about the veracity of Islam and if they right in their world domination campaign why do you feel the need to restate the obvious?
Was my answer about my belief too vague? Or just to pointed?--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Wow, is this broken record still playing?

On and on and on and on and---

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

On and on and on and on and---

Truth stands eternal. Dont like it , stop reading and replying to this thread or keep on posting juvenile bitching complaints that it is being discussed here and now. Over 124 replies and over a 1000 views in less than 3 days clearly point out that it interests others here. And has led to some interesting debating. Quite a bit of good information has been shared here as well.
Your attempts to censor criticism of Islam by any means you can use is so noted..
The fact that we discuss a very relevant and dire threat to our nation seems to anger or bore you so why participate at all? If you do why not actually attempt to refute the information that points out what they are doing worldwide? Why the snide one liners and juvenile bitching?
Yea, I just pulled my blade on you, on guard pedro... or is your scabbard rusted shut!??
Here, just in case you are unfamiliar with the word ,scabbard.. --Tyr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabbard
A scabbard is a sheath for holding a sword, knife, or other large blade. Scabbards have been made of many materials over the millennia, including leather, wood, and metals such as brass or steel.

[fj1200]

Over 124 replies and over a 1000 views in less than 3 days clearly point out that it interests others here.

My math shows that the unposted :laugh:s and the :rolleyes:s amount to 876.

[Missileman]

However I get to decide what I believe is true , as do we all.

As do they. How can you fault them for acting on what they deem true?

[Dilloduck]

Truth stands eternal. Dont like it , stop reading and replying to this thread or keep on posting juvenile bitching complaints that it is being discussed here and now. Over 124 replies and over a 1000 views in less than 3 days clearly point out that it interests others here. And has led to some interesting debating. Quite a bit of good information has been shared here as well.
Your attempts to censor criticism of Islam by any means you can use is so noted..
The fact that we discuss a very relevant and dire threat to our nation seems to anger or bore you so why participate at all? If you do why not actually attempt to refute the information that points out what they are doing worldwide? Why the snide one liners and juvenile bitching?
Yea, I just pulled my blade on you, on guard pedro... or is your scabbard rusted shut!??
Here, just in case you are unfamiliar with the word ,scabbard.. --Tyr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scabbard
A scabbard is a sheath for holding a sword, knife, or other large blade. Scabbards have been made of many materials over the millennia, including leather, wood, and metals such as brass or steel.

bullshit repeated over and over is still bullshit.
Your point that Islam is evil has been refuted over and over.
Makes for good site traffic tho I guess.

[tailfins]

It keeps skipping. :laugh:

Everyone who has strong beliefs thinks they are right. The fundamentalists believe they are right because that is all they have ever been taught. They live in a society of controlled thought. There is no other side.
The only truly enlightened people are those who acknowledge the existence of both sides. If you close off your mind and only consider one side, what makes you any better than a terrorist?
If this confuses you, forget it and go back to watching wrestling on TV.

When it comes to getting things done, there is a time to end discussion and act. Otherwise you get paralysis, incompetence and poverty. Either work gets done or time gets wasted reaching "consensus". The job at hand is to neutralize those assisting in plans to harm US citizens and visitors. Endlessly considering differing points view is the path to confusion. It's why small businesses can outperform big business that in turn can outperform government. Nothing motivates like the threat of going broke.

[fj1200]

Makes for good site traffic tho I guess.

Well that's certainly true. I think the "Muzzy" thread percentage has risen dramatically since... well, you know.

[Dilloduck]

When it comes to getting things done, there is a time to end discussion and act. Otherwise you get paralysis, incompetence and poverty. Either work gets done or time gets wasted reaching "consensus". The job at hand is to neutralize those assisting in plans to harm US citizens and visitors. Endlessly considering differing points view is the path to confusion. It's why small businesses can outperform big business that in turn can outperform government. Nothing motivates like the threat of going broke.

Bingo---money runs the world.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As do they. How can you fault them for acting on what they deem true?

I can and do because their agenda, their actions include murder and terrorism (Jihad)as the primary tool for advancement and enforcement of the religion. Ignoring the evil inherent in their actions may be convenient but is hardly rational , just, or wise!
Certainly not wise as it is in direct opposition to our Western values, Constitutional rights , the Rule of Law,and basic morality.

Take their honor killings for example and you will see perfectly well just what is wrong when ignorance and Islam are mixed together. And note the reasons given for such killing.

It's all just extremely sick and while you may come upon someone committing such here, and claiming to be Christian, this is so common among Muslims, that it has become a damn a broken record.

The US is letting down the system by not heavily screening people seeking entry into this country. This pertains to anyone, particularly Muslims, coming from Muslim dominated countries. Although the majority of Muslims have enough common sense not to indulge in such things. There are more than enough, who actually take such things on a Fundamentalist basis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dilloduck]

I can and do because their agenda, their actions include murder and terrorism (Jihad)as the primary tool for advancement and enforcement of the religion. Ignoring the evil inherent in their actions may be convenient but is hardly rational , just, or wise!
Certainly not wise as it is in direct opposition to our Western values, Constitutional rights , the Rule of Law,and basic morality.-Tyr

Islam is not a single unit or belief system. It is practiced differently by different tribes, sects and countries. Treating it as one evil system is proof that you err in judgement.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As do they. How can you fault them for acting on what they deem true?

Then we have stuff like this from those that you apparently think should not be faulted for their beliefs and actions.They are muslims...



http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4849

PA honors terrorist serving 30 life sentences
for Passover murders
PA minister visits family of terrorist who planned
Passover Seder bombing that killed 30 Israelis

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack.

Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy.


OR THIS.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html


Saturday, Sep 15 2012 6PM 59°F 9PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is threatening women and trying to ban gays in bid to impose sharia law
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 06:17 EST, 18 April 2011

..Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.
..

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz26YaDudVl

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OR CONSIDER THIS FROM A MUSLIM THAT BECAME A CHRISTIAN.
I think he may know a lot about Islam.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ex-muslim-author-koran-demands-jihad-teaches-believers-to-hate-christians-and-jews/

If Islam has to prosper, be the superior religion, then certain steps must be taken by its followers, including spreading Islam at any cost, including the sword and killing any opposition.
So you learn all of these things and then of course you learn that the Koran tells you to hate the Christians and the Jews.”

It is these messages that al Fadi desperately wants Americans, among other Westerners, to better understand. To address these issues, he has written a book called ‘The Qur’an Dilemma.”
In particular, he believes that the West has been fed a more favorable, less volatile picture of Islam in its entirety. One subject he covers in-depth is the Koran’s call for jihad, or “holy” war, against non-believers.

“It is basically a proscriptive demand found in the Koran when it comes to jihad – killing the infidels, spreading Islam until there is no other religion on earth except the religion of Allah,” he explains

[tailfins]

Islam is not a single unit or belief system. It is practiced differently by different tribes, sects and countries. Treating it as one evil system is proof that you err in judgement.

Confronting one evil system is a throwback from the Cold War.

[aboutime]

Confronting one evil system is a throwback from the Cold War.



Guess we can all agree to use that Excuse when talking to the relatives, and friends of those VICTIMS who have been killed?

That sounds just like another OBAMA EXCUSE, or method of BLAMING someone else for his Stupidity.

[Missileman]

I can and do because their agenda, their actions include murder and terrorism (Jihad)as the primary tool for advancement and enforcement of the religion. Ignoring the evil inherent in their actions may be convenient but is hardly rational , just, or wise!
Certainly not wise as it is in direct opposition to our Western values, Constitutional rights , the Rule of Law,and basic morality.

Take their honor killings for example and you will see perfectly well just what is wrong when ignorance and Islam are mixed together. And note the reasons given for such killing.

It's all just extremely sick and while you may come upon someone committing such here, and claiming to be Christian, this is so common among Muslims, that it has become a damn a broken record.

The US is letting down the system by not heavily screening people seeking entry into this country. This pertains to anyone, particularly Muslims, coming from Muslim dominated countries. Although the majority of Muslims have enough common sense not to indulge in such things. There are more than enough, who actually take such things on a Fundamentalist basis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You still don't get it. What if THEIR god and THEIR holy book IS the truth and they are indeed doing as GOD wants them to? IOW, what if YOU have it wrong?

[Missileman]

Then we have stuff like this from those that you apparently think should not be faulted for their beliefs and actions.They are muslims...



http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=4849

PA honors terrorist serving 30 life sentences
for Passover murders
PA minister visits family of terrorist who planned
Passover Seder bombing that killed 30 Israelis

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Palestinian Authority Minister of Prisoners' Affairs, Issa Karake, visited the family of the terrorist Abbas Al-Sayid who planned the Passover suicide bombing in 2002. Thirty Israelis were killed in the terror attack, when a suicide bomber entered a hotel in Netanya and detonated his bomb during the Passover Seder dinner. Al-Sayid is serving 30 life sentences for planning this attack.

Palestinian Media Watch has reported that honoring terrorists is an integral part of PA policy.


OR THIS.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html


Saturday, Sep 15 2012 6PM 59°F 9PM 62°F 5-Day Forecast 'Wear a headscarf or we will kill you': How the 'London Taliban' is threatening women and trying to ban gays in bid to impose sharia law
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 06:17 EST, 18 April 2011

..Women who do not wear headscarves are being threatened with violence and even death by Islamic extremists intent on imposing sharia law on parts of Britain, it was claimed today.
Other targets of the 'Talibanesque thugs', being investigated by police in the Tower Hamlets area of London, include homosexuals.
Stickers have been plastered on public walls stating: 'Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment'.
..

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377780/London-Taliban-targeting-women-gays-bid-impose-sharia-law.html#ixzz26YaDudVl

Actually, I'm an equal opportunity non-believer...I think you're all full of shit. I would NEVER suggest that someone's actions can be justified because of their beliefs. I was asking YOU the question to see if you might grasp the hypocrisy of your position.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, I'm an equal opportunity non-believer...I think you're all full of shit. I would NEVER suggest that someone's actions can be justified because of their beliefs. I was asking YOU the question to see if you might grasp the hypocrisy of your position.


I may be full of shit if a man may have no absolute in either his principles or his morality. From the subject were are discussing morality hits a bit closer to home. So I will address from that perspective if you do not mind. The way I see it you pose the question that how do I know they are wrong and I am right? As if putting forth this query should prove something, exactly what you think it proves I havent a clue. Unless you think it proves there are no absolutes. Would there being no absolutes prove my beliefs to be hypocrisy? My answer is a simple question , are you sure that there are no absoutes!??;) Sorry, just couldnt help tossing that one in here.;)
Can atheists justify any type of morality? Can water really be wet? Can monkees shine shoes?!!

In today's culture, the ideal of rejecting principled beliefs to be valid by presenting that there are no absolutes (which negates the entire concept of there being TRUTH) may be appealing to many and a defense against those taking a moral or highly principled stand! Yet, that fails to this old self evident truism. The truth, is the truth, is the TRUTH. Many people find this to be a VERY ENLIGHENING truism, they feel that there is something obvious and right about it and with just cause!

However, if you were to survey the latest philosophy journals, you would find no mention of absolute truths and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent "species of truth". The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the refutation of principled beliefs with ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers do not discuss "absolute truths" is that they find such talk to be the placing of circles into squares out of boredom IMHO!

The problem with the concept of "there are no absolute truths" is that it is a catchphrase under which several related but logically distinct ideas are collected. As such, whenever someone uses this concept it is unclear which (or which combination) of these logically distinct ideas they have in mind. Because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the notion absolute truth, contemporary philosophers prefer to avoid it and instead employ terms that capture with more precision the different ideas that people associate with absolute truth.

So can we jusify or prove these EXAMPLES (?),
- Anything that we take to be true is revisable
- We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe
- All truths are a matter of opinion
- Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
- All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
- There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Each of those examples have been discussed, at one point or another, in contemporary philosophy and each are held or denied with varying degrees of confidence. So my advice is, if every you are tempted to talk about absolute truths you should ask yourself which, if any, of the above ideas you have in mind.

All the those given, which are meant to express the negation of the existence of an absolute truth, does not actually refer to the existence of the absolute truth itself. Rather the expressions merely refer to the inability of humans to percieve or recognise absolute truths. I guess this has a lot to do with our semantic definition of what “truth” is though. Now I acknowledge that the concept of “truth” AS has been devised by humans is a very subjective phenomena. However, surely when we refer to “absolute truths” we are referring to the existence of objective facts, in other words, an “objective reality” that exists beyond the human mind.

We are not referring to a general consensus that all humans can agree upon to be true… Surely humans do not have to be aware of the existence of these absolute truths and objective facts in order for them to exist?
“We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe”!!!

My problem with the examples given that express the belief that “there are no absolute truths”. They all refer to our inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths. But our ignorance does not have anything to do with whether absolute truths actually exist. The truth, the true state of affairs, an objective reality could exist, without us being none the wiser. Or one may intuitively know it and act upon it without the need to prove it to anybody!

The existence of absolte truth does exist whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not. For example: It is true that either that man killed his wife, or that he did not. One or the other. Whether we know whether that man is guilty or innocent, he is definately one or the other.
The TRUTH is not dependent on our own personal, subjective opinions. If it were, everything we believe to be true, including whether that man was guilty or not, could be completely arbitrary!! In fact, if there was no “absolute truth”, or facts about the world, to correspond to our beliefs, then truth, absolute or relative, could not exist (according to the correspondance theory).

If you maintain that individual truth must a\lways be revisable, but does that really have any impact on the truth about truth? It seems to me, that the thesis for the argument that “there is no absolute truth” can not hold any weight at all.

Thus we have your "what if you are wrong" argument , its questioning of what is truth, and the "second guessing ourselves" taken down one of the many million of paths one can easily carry it...

If we were to talk about religious morality, I would say that relativism only has one place: it determining which things are okay outside of whatever determines one’s moral code. However, I am of the thought that there is only one correct moral code. Now I realize that there will be many that are within this school of thought that have different moral codes. This is a seemingly a paradox. However, the clear solution is that we must realize that when examined from a pure secularism view, our moral code might be the wrong one. So then debates must be done between the different moral codes to determine which one is the correct one. However, the idea of one person determining morality for themselves and another determining morality for themselves when the two moralities might disagree means that we have actually done away with morality and that we have just welcomed in every person being a walking moral code, which means that morality can never be determined. This means we could never say an action was actually immoral, because to the other person it could have been one of the most moral things they could have done!! This is chaos. Reality does not lend itself to this paradox being valid IMHO.
I hereby certify my "absolute belief" that Islam is not right by the ONE TRUE GOD! ;)
Or as was cited before by my previous vote...:laugh:--Tyr

[tailfins]

Guess we can all agree to use that Excuse when talking to the relatives, and friends of those VICTIMS who have been killed?

That sounds just like another OBAMA EXCUSE, or method of BLAMING someone else for his Stupidity.

Bad information yields bad results. As far as I'm concerned America is the focus. All I care about is properly protect the American people. I don't care about all the strange religions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bad information yields bad results. As far as I'm concerned America is the focus. All I care about is properly protect the American people. I don't care about all the strange religions.

Nothing wrong with that as a sole pursuit IMHO..--:beer:-Tyr

[Missileman]

I may be full of shit if a man may have no absolute in either his principles or his morality. From the subject were are discussing morality hits a bit closer to home. So I will address from that perspective if you do not mind. The way I see it you pose the question that how do I know they are wrong and I am right? As if putting forth this query should prove something, exactly what you think it proves I havent a clue. Unless you think it proves there are no absolutes. Would there being no absolutes prove my beliefs to be hypocrisy? My answer is a simple question , are you sure that there are no absoutes!??;) Sorry, just couldnt help tossing that one in here.;)
Can atheists justify any type of morality? Can water really be wet? Can monkees shine shoes?!!

In today's culture, the ideal of rejecting principled beliefs to be valid by presenting that there are no absolutes (which negates the entire concept of there being TRUTH) may be appealing to many and a defense against those taking a moral or highly principled stand! Yet, that fails to this old self evident truism. The truth, is the truth, is the TRUTH. Many people find this to be a VERY ENLIGHENING truism, they feel that there is something obvious and right about it and with just cause!

However, if you were to survey the latest philosophy journals, you would find no mention of absolute truths and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent "species of truth". The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the refutation of principled beliefs with ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers do not discuss "absolute truths" is that they find such talk to be the placing of circles into squares out of boredom IMHO!

The problem with the concept of "there are no absolute truths" is that it is a catchphrase under which several related but logically distinct ideas are collected. As such, whenever someone uses this concept it is unclear which (or which combination) of these logically distinct ideas they have in mind. Because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the notion absolute truth, contemporary philosophers prefer to avoid it and instead employ terms that capture with more precision the different ideas that people associate with absolute truth.

So can we jusify or prove these EXAMPLES (?),
- Anything that we take to be true is revisable
- We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe
- All truths are a matter of opinion
- Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
- All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
- There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Each of those examples have been discussed, at one point or another, in contemporary philosophy and each are held or denied with varying degrees of confidence. So my advice is, if every you are tempted to talk about absolute truths you should ask yourself which, if any, of the above ideas you have in mind.

All the those given, which are meant to express the negation of the existence of an absolute truth, does not actually refer to the existence of the absolute truth itself. Rather the expressions merely refer to the inability of humans to percieve or recognise absolute truths. I guess this has a lot to do with our semantic definition of what “truth” is though. Now I acknowledge that the concept of “truth” AS has been devised by humans is a very subjective phenomena. However, surely when we refer to “absolute truths” we are referring to the existence of objective facts, in other words, an “objective reality” that exists beyond the human mind.

We are not referring to a general consensus that all humans can agree upon to be true… Surely humans do not have to be aware of the existence of these absolute truths and objective facts in order for them to exist?
“We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe”!!!

My problem with the examples given that express the belief that “there are no absolute truths”. They all refer to our inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths. But our ignorance does not have anything to do with whether absolute truths actually exist. The truth, the true state of affairs, an objective reality could exist, without us being none the wiser. Or one may intuitively know it and act upon it without the need to prove it to anybody!

The existence of absolte truth does exist whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not. For example: It is true that either that man killed his wife, or that he did not. One or the other. Whether we know whether that man is guilty or innocent, he is definately one or the other.
The TRUTH is not dependent on our own personal, subjective opinions. If it were, everything we believe to be true, including whether that man was guilty or not, could be completely arbitrary!! In fact, if there was no “absolute truth”, or facts about the world, to correspond to our beliefs, then truth, absolute or relative, could not exist (according to the correspondance theory).

If you maintain that individual truth must a\lways be revisable, but does that really have any impact on the truth about truth? It seems to me, that the thesis for the argument that “there is no absolute truth” can not hold any weight at all.

Thus we have your "what if you are wrong" argument , its questioning of what is truth, and the "second guessing ourselves" taken down one of the many million of paths one can easily carry it...

If we were to talk about religious morality, I would say that relativism only has one place: it determining which things are okay outside of whatever determines one’s moral code. However, I am of the thought that there is only one correct moral code. Now I realize that there will be many that are within this school of thought that have different moral codes. This is a seemingly a paradox. However, the clear solution is that we must realize that when examined from a pure secularism view, our moral code might be the wrong one. So then debates must be done between the different moral codes to determine which one is the correct one. However, the idea of one person determining morality for themselves and another determining morality for themselves when the two moralities might disagree means that we have actually done away with morality and that we have just welcomed in every person being a walking moral code, which means that morality can never be determined. This means we could never say an action was actually immoral, because to the other person it could have been one of the most moral things they could have done!! This is chaos. Reality does not lend itself to this paradox being valid IMHO.
I hereby certify my "absolute belief" that Islam is not right by the ONE TRUE GOD! ;)
Or as was cited before by my previous vote...:laugh:--Tyr

Their conviction is as strong as yours. Yours and their conviction is as strong as that held in the past by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norsemen, etc.

Hypothetically, if Islam is the truth and they are indeed following god's directive, are they acting morally?

If it turns out that both Christianity and Islam are fairy tales, is your Christian morality superior to Islam's?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Their conviction is as strong as yours. Yours and their conviction is as strong as that held in the past by Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Norsemen, etc.

Hypothetically, if Islam is the truth and they are indeed following god's directive, are they acting morally?

If it turns out that both Christianity and Islam are fairy tales, is your Christian morality superior to Islam's?

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

We have prisons chock full of people who have done the same thing in America. Can't rattle off the stats for ya but I'm batting a majority are listed as having no religion or Christians. It's criminal behavior, not a religion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We have prisons chock full of people who have done the same thing in America. Can't rattle off the stats for ya but I'm batting a majority are listed as having no religion or Christians. It's criminal behavior, not a religion.

Good to know that doing those things to further a religion is "just" criminal behaviour. Tell me how many ordinary run of the mill criminals are actively carrying a prayer rug, murdering innocent people and chanting Allah Akbar?
According to you one can not murder for a religious cause!! They are lying bastards when citing why they are doing that! Got a link to support in anyway this amazing revelation?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Good to know that doing those things to further a religion is "just" criminal behaviour. Tell me how many ordinary run of the mill criminals are actively carrying a prayer rug, murdering innocent people and chanting Allah Akbar?
According to you one can not murder for a religious cause!! They are lying bastards when citing why they are doing that! Got a link to support in anyway this amazing revelation?-Tyr

Sure they can. Remember the Crusades ?

[Missileman]

Why limit it to "christian" morality?
Is my --morality-- superior to those that rape, pillage and murder to further their "insane" devotion to a God that they believe grants them that right?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply because I know those actions are evil and they actively pursue such actions against innocent women and children therby compounding the evil. Sure, its a judgement call , as are all decisions made on moral principles.-Tyr

Assuming of course that they aren't actually acting under divine guidance. Under those circumstances, their actions would be moral, no?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Assuming of course that they aren't actually acting under divine guidance. Under those circumstances, their actions would be moral, no?

That is assuming of course that that God needed humans to murder for him. Thought that you were agnostic?
The true God allowed his son to be murdered by man , a sacrifice to pay the price for man's soul , the gift offered as reward to Christ for that act was Salvation for man. That God has no need for men to kill in his name, rather onlyto live in his name. Man has need to kill for his own greed ,desires and vanity. I am not a big supporter of turn the other cheek myself. I have the weakness of desire for vengeance. I remember clearly the events of one day , 9/11. -Tyr

[Missileman]

That is assuming of course that that God needed humans to murder for him. Thought that you were agnostic?
The true God allowed his son to be murdered by man , a sacrifice to pay the price for man's soul , the gift offered as reward to Christ for that act was Salvation for man. That God has no need for men to kill in his name, rather onlyto live in his name. Man has need to kill for his own greed ,desires and vanity. I am not a big supporter of turn the other cheek myself. I have the weakness of desire for vengeance. I remember clearly the events of one day , 9/11. -Tyr

Why won't you answer my question?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why won't you answer my question?

I already answered this , "what if question" asked by you.


You still don't get it. What if THEIR god and THEIR holy book IS the truth and they are indeed doing as GOD wants them to? IOW, what if YOU have it wrong?


Because "what if questions" like that bare no significant relation to the topic being discussed. One could imagine millions of "what if" questions.
What if Michelle tried to divorce obama before the elections were held!?? SEE.
The subject of this thread is Islam and its past, present and possible future actions , not Christianity, God or what if cows could fly?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that all muslims want to take over the world and will murder to accomplish that. Correct ?

[Missileman]

I already answered this , "what if question" asked by you.




Because "what if questions" like that bare no significant relation to the topic being discussed. One could imagine millions of "what if" questions.
What if Michelle tried to divorce obama before the elections were held!?? SEE.
The subject of this thread is Islam and its past, present and possible future actions , not Christianity, God or what if cows could fly?-Tyr

And the question, which ABSOLUTELY is valid, is "if their god exists and sanctions their actions, are Muslims acting morally?" It's a simple question and you've yet to answer it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And the question, which ABSOLUTELY is valid, is "if their god exists and sanctions their actions, are Muslims acting morally?" It's a simple question and you've yet to answer it.

Ok, you keep repeating the question so I'll repeat my answer already given to you.





Originally Posted by Missileman
Actually, I'm an equal opportunity non-believer...I think you're all full of shit. I would NEVER suggest that someone's actions can be justified because of their beliefs. I was asking YOU the question to see if you might grasp the hypocrisy of your position.

I may be full of shit if a man may have no absolute in either his principles or his morality. From the subject were are discussing morality hits a bit closer to home. So I will address from that perspective if you do not mind. The way I see it you pose the question that how do I know they are wrong and I am right? As if putting forth this query should prove something, exactly what you think it proves I havent a clue. Unless you think it proves there are no absolutes. Would there being no absolutes prove my beliefs to be hypocrisy? My answer is a simple question , are you sure that there are no absoutes!?? Sorry, just couldnt help tossing that one in here.
Can atheists justify any type of morality? Can water really be wet? Can monkees shine shoes?!!

In today's culture, the ideal of rejecting principled beliefs to be valid by presenting that there are no absolutes (which negates the entire concept of there being TRUTH) may be appealing to many and a defense against those taking a moral or highly principled stand! Yet, that fails to this old self evident truism. The truth, is the truth, is the TRUTH. Many people find this to be a VERY ENLIGHENING truism, they feel that there is something obvious and right about it and with just cause!

However, if you were to survey the latest philosophy journals, you would find no mention of absolute truths and no philosophers intent on demonstrating the existence or nonexistence of this apparent "species of truth". The reason for this is not a lack of interest, on the part of contemporary philosophers, in the issues that people have in mind when they proffer the refutation of principled beliefs with ‘there are no absolute truths’. Philosophers have many things to say about these issues. Rather, the reason why contemporary philosophers do not discuss "absolute truths" is that they find such talk to be the placing of circles into squares out of boredom IMHO!

The problem with the concept of "there are no absolute truths" is that it is a catchphrase under which several related but logically distinct ideas are collected. As such, whenever someone uses this concept it is unclear which (or which combination) of these logically distinct ideas they have in mind. Because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the notion absolute truth, contemporary philosophers prefer to avoid it and instead employ terms that capture with more precision the different ideas that people associate with absolute truth.

So can we jusify or prove these EXAMPLES (?),
- Anything that we take to be true is revisable
- We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe
- All truths are a matter of opinion
- Truth is relative (to culture, historical epoch, language, society etc.)
- All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths)
- There is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true

Each of those examples have been discussed, at one point or another, in contemporary philosophy and each are held or denied with varying degrees of confidence. So my advice is, if every you are tempted to talk about absolute truths you should ask yourself which, if any, of the above ideas you have in mind.

All the those given, which are meant to express the negation of the existence of an absolute truth, does not actually refer to the existence of the absolute truth itself. Rather the expressions merely refer to the inability of humans to percieve or recognise absolute truths. I guess this has a lot to do with our semantic definition of what “truth” is though. Now I acknowledge that the concept of “truth” AS has been devised by humans is a very subjective phenomena. However, surely when we refer to “absolute truths” we are referring to the existence of objective facts, in other words, an “objective reality” that exists beyond the human mind.

We are not referring to a general consensus that all humans can agree upon to be true… Surely humans do not have to be aware of the existence of these absolute truths and objective facts in order for them to exist?
“We can never have a ‘god’s-eye’ view of the universe”!!!

My problem with the examples given that express the belief that “there are no absolute truths”. They all refer to our inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths. But our ignorance does not have anything to do with whether absolute truths actually exist. The truth, the true state of affairs, an objective reality could exist, without us being none the wiser. Or one may intuitively know it and act upon it without the need to prove it to anybody!

The existence of absolte truth does exist whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or not. For example: It is true that either that man killed his wife, or that he did not. One or the other. Whether we know whether that man is guilty or innocent, he is definately one or the other.
The TRUTH is not dependent on our own personal, subjective opinions. If it were, everything we believe to be true, including whether that man was guilty or not, could be completely arbitrary!! In fact, if there was no “absolute truth”, or facts about the world, to correspond to our beliefs, then truth, absolute or relative, could not exist (according to the correspondance theory).

If you maintain that individual truth must a\lways be revisable, but does that really have any impact on the truth about truth? It seems to me, that the thesis for the argument that “there is no absolute truth” can not hold any weight at all.

Thus we have your "what if you are wrong" argument , its questioning of what is truth, and the "second guessing ourselves" taken down one of the many million of paths one can easily carry it...

If we were to talk about religious morality, I would say that relativism only has one place: it determining which things are okay outside of whatever determines one’s moral code. However, I am of the thought that there is only one correct moral code. Now I realize that there will be many that are within this school of thought that have different moral codes. This is a seemingly a paradox. However, the clear solution is that we must realize that when examined from a pure secularism view, our moral code might be the wrong one. So then debates must be done between the different moral codes to determine which one is the correct one. However, the idea of one person determining morality for themselves and another determining morality for themselves when the two moralities might disagree means that we have actually done away with morality and that we have just welcomed in every person being a walking moral code, which means that morality can never be determined. This means we could never say an action was actually immoral, because to the other person it could have been one of the most moral things they could have done!! This is chaos. Reality does not lend itself to this paradox being valid IMHO.
I hereby certify my "absolute belief" that Islam is not right by the ONE TRUE GOD!
Or as was cited before by my previous vote...--Tyr

If you need another different answer, you'll have to ask a different question..-Tyr

[Missileman]

Ok, you keep repeating the question so I'll repeat my answer already given to you.



You still haven't answered my question. All the typing you're doing is a smokescreen for dodging it. Your answer should be either yes or no with an explanation of why if you choose to expound.

Are you afraid to answer it? I can certainly understand why you would be.

[tailfins]

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that all muslims want to take over the world and will murder to accomplish that. Correct ?

Naw. I think I met a Muslim convenience store owner in Skowhegan, Maine that wouldn't do that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

bullshit repeated over and over is still bullshit.
Your point that Islam is evil has been refuted over and over.Makes for good site traffic tho I guess.

Missed this post. I hate that!
Refuted by who, when , where and how? You just stated obviously your opinion on Islam representing it as a solid fact.
How about some proof of that bullshat!!??--Tyr

[tailfins]

Quote Originally Posted by Dilloduck View Post
bullshit repeated over and over is still bullshit.
Your point that Islam is evil has been refuted over and over.Makes for good site traffic tho I guess.

Missed this post. I hate that!
Refuted by who, when , where and how? You just stated obviously your opinion on Islam representing it as a solid fact.
How about some proof of that bullshat!!??--Tyr


Evil is a value judgement, so I will put it this way: The vast majority if not all the foreign perpetrators of terrorist attacks against Americans have been Muslim.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You still haven't answered my question. All the typing you're doing is a smokescreen for dodging it. Your answer should be either yes or no with an explanation of why if you choose to expound.

Are you afraid to answer it? I can certainly understand why you would be.

So what? Are you demanding that I give a different answer to your "what if" question?

If so then consider this ;

-----------------"WHAT IF I CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER A THIRD TIME"!!??
-----------------"WHAT IF I JUST REPEAT MY PREVIOUS ANSWER"!!???
-----------------"WHAT IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC"!!??
AND , "WHAT IF" A "WHAT IF" QUESTION BEGETS A "WHAT IF " ANSWER????;)--TYR

"What if" you cite proof of thier being right, of their murderous actions being justified and sanctioned by God, any God will do.
This could be played on and on and on..

[Drummond]

I have a 'what if' question to offer as well.

What if 'Missileman' is just here to troll ?

[Drummond]

Naw. I think I met a Muslim convenience store owner in Skowhegan, Maine that wouldn't do that.

You think he might be too busy running his store ?

[Missileman]

So what? Are you demanding that I give a different answer to your "what if" question?

If so then consider this ;

-----------------"WHAT IF I CHOOSE NOT TO ANSWER A THIRD TIME"!!??
-----------------"WHAT IF I JUST REPEAT MY PREVIOUS ANSWER"!!???
-----------------"WHAT IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC"!!??
AND , "WHAT IF" A "WHAT IF" QUESTION BEGETS A "WHAT IF " ANSWER????;)--TYR

"What if" you cite proof of thier being right, of their murderous actions being justified and sanctioned by God, any God will do.
This could be played on and on and on..

More dodging...you ARE afraid to answer the question.

[Drummond]

Islam is not a single unit or belief system. It is practiced differently by different tribes, sects and countries. Treating it as one evil system is proof that you err in judgement.

We've seen in just the past few days how willing Muslims are to attack others, and kill people, in response to a video they didn't like. Were/are those attacks limited just to one 'tribe' in Islam, or even one country ??

Now compare that to the Christian equivalent, and let's say that Muslims created a video, posted it on YouTube (.. and do you imagine they HAVEN'T ?) which Christians would regard as a great insult to Christianity. Tell me, what 'tribes' or 'sects' within Christianity would duplicate the evil you've seen played out in these recent days ??

Would Anglicans ? Baptists ? Methodists ? Lutherans ? Presbyterians ? Catholics ? ANYONE ?

Dilloduck, Muslims have behaved as they have because Islam encourages it .. this is obvious. You see no evidence of any such equivalent in Christianity, however.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I have a 'what if' question to offer as well.

What if 'Missileman' is just here to troll ?

Apparently his mission is to prove me hypocritical in my stand taken on Islam and its threat. As if posing a "WHAT IF" question could prove that, negate truth and disprove the existence of absolutes. Perhaps he wants to prove my faith in my judgement and core principles backing that judgement are figments of my imagination because TRUTH is always an evolving concept. I dont know his aim in taking this line but demanding a different answer that the one given proves nothing but a failure to address and/or refute the points made in that answer as it was given !
Criticising the length of my answer proves nothing.
I was polite enough to suggest that he ask a different question to get a different answer. Yet he apparently thinks my answer counts as zero therefor I must give a different one. He will soon find out that I dont bend to such demands and those demands do not serve to prove hypocrisy on my part, nor that I am full of shit as he so cleverly put it. Islam and its threat is the subject not "what if" flights of fantasy that serve to prove nothing..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

More dodging...you ARE afraid to answer the question.

Good grief man, I already answered it. You just didnt like my answer SO you kept on rephrasing the question hoping for a different answer .. Now when not getting one you play "he is afraid card" as if that will make me choose to answer in a manner and way that you deem appropriate.
What if you stop this little charade and address why you think they are just as likely to be right?
Could it be because then you would have to defend thier murderous action?--Tyr

[Kathianne]

And the question, which ABSOLUTELY is valid, is "if their god exists and sanctions their actions, are Muslims acting morally?" It's a simple question and you've yet to answer it.

I'll take a stab at answering the question.

We both know you are agnostic or atheist, right? So in this hypothetical, you agree that for Muslims, Allah is god.

The quibble isn't whether or not a god exists, it's whether or not the Muslims are acting morally, as they perceive their moral obligation to said god?

If the Koran and its 'extensions' say that killing infidels; committing suicide to kill civilians, including most fellow Muslims in order to please Allah and gain more believers if fine and dandy, then I would answer, "Yes, it's moral in their eyes."

Problem comes with the number of Muslims that say, "No, this is not permitted by the Holy Koran, it's wrong", though they go onto say that because so many are illiterate, because of the cartoons/videos, people are offended and are behaving badly, etc. Thus, they can 'empathize' with the terrorists, while denouncing them.

I wish I had the time to study the Koran, Hadiths, and other holy writings to Islam. I'm pretty sure though that my time is running out to getting around to that in a serious way. From what limited amounts I have read, there seems to be many contradictions; sort of like the New and Old Testaments.

[Dilloduck]

Missed this post. I hate that!
Refuted by who, when , where and how? You just stated obviously your opinion on Islam representing it as a solid fact.
How about some proof of that bullshat!!??--Tyr

No--I'm just pointing out the many holes in the theory you are so fond of. If you want to be the judge as to whether your theory is rock solid or not go for it.

[Missileman]

Good grief man, I already answered it. You just didnt like my answer SO you kept on rephrasing the question hoping for a different answer .. Now when not getting one you play "he is afraid card" as if that will make me choose to answer in a manner and way that you deem appropriate.
What if you stop this little charade and address why you think they are just as likely to be right?
Could it be because then you would have to defend thier murderous action?--Tyr

You haven't answered it. You've gone to great lengths to explain how Christianity is different than Islam, but you've yet to answer if Muslims are acting morally if you're wrong, they're right and acting as their deity wishes for them to. You sound like Holder responding to Congress about Fast and Furious e-mails. "I've given you 10,000 documents, I am fully cooperating"...of course, the e-mails aren't contained in the 10,000 documents.

[Kathianne]

You haven't answered it. You've gone to great lengths to explain how Christianity is different than Islam, but you've yet to answer if Muslims are acting morally if you're wrong, they're right and acting as their deity wishes for them to. You sound like Holder responding to Congress about Fast and Furious e-mails. "I've given you 10,000 documents, I am fully cooperating"...of course, the e-mails aren't contained in the 10,000 documents.

I agree that just saying, "Islam is a lie, sucks, etc." isn't a move towards bridging anything. I concede that if they are acting in accordance with the teachings, they certainly would be acting in a moral fashion, though they have to deal with 'man' on earth, not their god.

[Drummond]

You haven't answered it. You've gone to great lengths to explain how Christianity is different than Islam, but you've yet to answer if Muslims are acting morally if you're wrong, they're right and acting as their deity wishes for them to. You sound like Holder responding to Congress about Fast and Furious e-mails. "I've given you 10,000 documents, I am fully cooperating"...of course, the e-mails aren't contained in the 10,000 documents.

I for one don't believe your proposition holds water. It's like saying that savagery is one person's evil but the savage's good. Or, that to a criminal, criminality is good but to other people, it's bad.

God saying that savagery is good, is nonsense. God saying that criminality is good, is nonsense.

Do you imagine that God created the Universe, and everything in it, just so that criminality could thrive within it ?

To Islamists, such a God can exist. They built a religion, and are loyal to it, which sanctions savagery. Their God is evidently false .. a nonsense. But they want to spread their evil all the same.

Was 9/11 'good', Missileman ? Were the 3,000 who died required to die on God's orders ... is that your suggestion ?

If it is .. you should rethink your insult .. that's my suggestion.

And if it's not .. then on what possible basis do you suggest the remotest possibility of Islam being 'right' ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You haven't answered it. You've gone to great lengths to explain how Christianity is different than Islam, but you've yet to answer if Muslims are acting morally if you're wrong, they're right and acting as their deity wishes for them to. You sound like Holder responding to Congress about Fast and Furious e-mails. "I've given you 10,000 documents, I am fully cooperating"...of course, the e-mails aren't contained in the 10,000 documents.

I do not give a damn what is moral to a group of people that deliberately and repeatedly murder innnocent women and children! Who cares if thier imagined version of a god sanctions it? I spit on any such god! I deal in reality and reality is that they murder innocent women and children with delight and joy in thier perverted and wicked hearts.
Your hypothetical question on morality is irrelevant IMHO. I GAVE IT THE ANSWER THAT I THOUGHT BEST.
We could discuss billions of hypotheticals but to what purpose? So you can what, force me to admit a possibility of their being right and my being wrong. And if I choose not to admit that, it proves exactly what? I simply choose not to second guess a decision I made after careful and long research .
So you can keep stroking this pole until you get your own satisfaction but I refuse to help you in such mental masturbation..
You got my answer, dont like it , make up one yourself. This is my last post to you dealing with this "what if" flight of fantasy.
Islam is savage, murderous and wrong...-Tyr

[Missileman]

I'll take a stab at answering the question.

We both know you are agnostic or atheist, right? So in this hypothetical, you agree that for Muslims, Allah is god.

The quibble isn't whether or not a god exists, it's whether or not the Muslims are acting morally, as they perceive their moral obligation to said god?

If the Koran and its 'extensions' say that killing infidels; committing suicide to kill civilians, including most fellow Muslims in order to please Allah and gain more believers then I would answer, "Yes, it's moral in their eyes."

Problem comes with the number of Muslims that say, "No, this is not permitted by the Holy Koran, it's wrong", though they go onto say that because so many are illiterate, because of the cartoons/videos, people are offended and are behaving badly, etc. Thus, the can 'empathize' with the terrorists, while denouncing them.

Thanks Kathianne...you're the first to actually answer my question.

And you understand the point I'm making. Not that I believe it's the case, but I would further argue that if it turns out the Islamic fundies have it right, that Allah is God and the Koran's passages about killing infidels were divinely inspired and speak to Allah's wishes, then not only do they believe they're acting morally, but if as it's been suggested, morals are derived from god, then they are indeed acting morally.

Tyr's of the opinion that Christian morality is the only valid morality because it's what he believes. He doesn't seem to grasp that Muslims hold the exact same opinion of their morality and up until the day that one or both or none are proven real, they have EQUAL claim to the moral high ground.

This is not an indorsement of Islam nor a knock on Christianity. I don't believe in either.

[Missileman]

I for one don't believe your proposition holds water. It's like saying that savagery is one person's evil but the savage's good. Or, that to a criminal, criminality is good but to other people, it's bad.

God saying that savagery is good, is nonsense. God saying that criminality is good, is nonsense.

Do you imagine that God created the Universe, and everything in it, just so that criminality could thrive within it ?

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist, so my answer to your question is no, but not for the reason you think.



Their God is evidently false .. a nonsense.

No less so than yours.




Was 9/11 'good', Missileman ? Were the 3,000 who died required to die on God's orders ... is that your suggestion ?

If it is .. you should rethink your insult .. that's my suggestion.

And if it's not .. then on what possible basis do you suggest the remotest possibility of Islam being 'right' ?

Assume that Allah is real and the Koran is divinely inspired, then ask Allah.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Somebody clearly missed my comments on Truth and Absolutes!
The Truth is absolute.. otherwise the Universe would not exist.
We may be absolutely sure that a - TRUTH- we know is both absolute and true but if we ARE found to wrong it does not negate the TRUTH that was still there even though we failed either to find it or admit it.-Tyr

[Missileman]

Somebody clearly missed my comments on Truth and Absolutes!
The Truth is absolute.. otherwise the Universe would not exist.
We may be absolutely sure that a - TRUTH- we know is both absolute and true but if we ARE found to wrong it does not negate the TRUTH that was still there even though we failed either to find it or admit it.-Tyr

The truth is indeed an absolute. Unfortunately for you, the truth isn't subject to the whims of your belief. All I was asking was for you to consider the possibility that the truth might not be what you believe. It's apparently beyond your capabilities.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The truth is indeed an absolute. Unfortunately for you, the truth isn't subject to the whims of your belief. All I was asking was for you to consider the possibility that the truth might not be what you believe. It's apparently beyond your capabilities.

My long posts on TRUTHS and Absolutes should have clued you in on the fact that I knew what you intended and where you were headed with the question. My refusal to go there was indeed stubborn but had absolutely nothing to do with my capabilities to answer or defend my views.
Islam poses a grave threat to our survival as individual citizens and as a soveriegn nation.
Now that you got an answer to your question from Katherine, care to discuss the Islamic threat to us at all ?-Tyr

[Drummond]

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist, so my answer to your question is no, but not for the reason you think.

This certainly explains much. The lack of evident grounding in an acceptance of what constitutes good or evil.

My last post tried to examine that, but you've skated over the issues I raised. This seems to be because you don't identify with moral absolutes sufficiently to see that my argument had substance which it was reasonable to accept.


No less so than yours.

Though you may not understand, I've just covered this.


Assume that Allah is real and the Koran is divinely inspired, then ask Allah.

But I assume no such thing, because it isn't reasonable to. To suppose you could possibly be correct is to suppose that evil can come from 'divine' inspiration.

How can evil be 'divine' ?

Still .. am I wasting my time in asking you ? Your atheism may make you unable to grasp the absurdity involved.

[Drummond]

My long posts on TRUTHS and Absolutes should have clued you in on the fact that I knew what you intended and where you were headed with the question. My refusal to go there was indeed stubborn but had absolutely nothing to do with my capabilities to answer or defend my views.
Islam poses a grave threat to our survival as individual citizens and as a soveriegn nation.
Now that you got an answer to your question from Katherine, care to discuss the Islamic threat to us at all ?-Tyr

.. yes.

Thanks for putting us back on track.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This certainly explains much. The lack of evident grounding in an acceptance of what constitutes good or evil.

My last post tried to examine that, but you've skated over the issues I raised. This seems to be because you don't identify with moral absolutes sufficiently to see that my argument had substance which it was reasonable to accept.



Though you may not understand, I've just covered this.



But I assume no such thing, because it isn't reasonable to. To suppose you could possibly be correct is to suppose that evil can come from 'divine' inspiration.

How can evil be 'divine' ?

Still .. am I wasting my time in asking you ? Your atheism may make you unable to grasp the absurdity involved.

^^^^ I have many long discussions with atheists in my time. Your comment bolded above sums it up quite nicely, for regardless of how intelligent they are(and many were) it always comes down to the truth of that comment!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now that we are back ontrack....
Big D, you have much experience with the Islamic scourge that is destroying Britain and with that in mind what should be our first step in stopping that destruction here without destroying our free speech and freedom of religion insured by our CONSTITUTION? Could it be passing limited laws or must it be education, passing laws , reteaching patriotism and active aggressive policing of the extremists here? I had intended to ask you this question yesterday but got side tracked.

[Missileman]

This certainly explains much. The lack of evident grounding in an acceptance of what constitutes good or evil.

My last post tried to examine that, but you've skated over the issues I raised. This seems to be because you don't identify with moral absolutes sufficiently to see that my argument had substance which it was reasonable to accept.



Though you may not understand, I've just covered this.



But I assume no such thing, because it isn't reasonable to. To suppose you could possibly be correct is to suppose that evil can come from 'divine' inspiration.

How can evil be 'divine' ?

Still .. am I wasting my time in asking you ? Your atheism may make you unable to grasp the absurdity involved.

Can a mandate from your deity be evil?

[Drummond]

Now that we are back ontrack....
Big D, you have much experience with the Islamic scourge that is destroying Britain and with that in mind what should be our first step in stopping that destruction here without destroying our free speech and freedom of religion insured by our CONSTITUTION? Could it be passing limited laws or must it be education, passing laws , reteaching patriotism and active aggressive policing of the extremists here? I had intended to ask you this question yesterday but got side tracked.

In my view, your first order of business MUST be to get Obama and his cronies booted out of Office, and for a Government to take its place which is prepared to dismantle the programs of so-called 'reform' he's made some progress with. Allied to that, in my view, is the first and pivotal step necessary .. one of showing the ordinary American citizen what beliefs and values America was founded to uphold.

These all go hand-in-hand, because (a) without the wreckers neutralised, (b) without the misdirection corrected, and (c) without renewed and redoubled efforts to educate America in the values it's in danger of losing, whatever progress you may make won't have the stability of faith in them which you need to make them last.

I suggest that a part of the re-education process should include critical examinations of countries such as my own. So that you can see for yourselves where losing your identity can lead. Seeing the processes whereby a country can lose itself to alien and pernicious, invasive beliefs should surely prove that equivalence in these areas is a destructive path, to be avoided.

Very tight controls on immigration is also a 'must', with absolutely every would-be immigrant required to convince officials of his or her reverence for your foundling ideals. Fail to have this in place is an invitation to invite all sorts of 'crazies' to operate within your borders. Part of the UK's problem has been the Left's insistence on making our borders porous. This has led to a deluge of immigrants not only moving in but creating whole communities alien to British values and culture.

On the basis that your extremists are by definition 'anti-American', certainly aggressive policing is called for - and with an emphasis placed on deportation of the 'undesirables'. WHY should you tolerate those intent on acting as your adversaries ?

Your Constitution enshrines freedoms within your country. However, freedom isn't there as a means to harm you, and since with freedom comes responsibility, then the responsibility to ensure that nobody uses it for that harm HAS to both exist and be acted upon. This, depending upon the severity of the problem, may need some aggressive policing of its own.

I am not calling for a 'police State' as such. What I do suggest is a reawakening of core American values which lead to an intolerance of those meaning those values harm. Identification of the nature of your country's adversaries is vital, keeping them in permanent check, ditto.

You see, in the UK, we had Lefties who'd defer to anybody, and who argued that to show intolerance was 'bigoted', 'racist', antisocial. The reality was that immigrants from foreign cultures, with their foreign religions, flooded our territory, set up communities entirely their own, created pressure groups, built their mosques, and just demanded concession after concession, all of this eroding the values and identity of our nation. Islamists in particular have no interest in integration, and though our Lefties believed they would, all they REALLY got for their efforts of 'understanding' was a 'bend to us' message.

Now, America, under the leadership of its own version of the Left, can travel our path .. and lose itself. Or, it can shake itself, wake up, regenerate an awareness of what it should REALLY stand for, and unite in its patriotic identity. It's possible to tolerate other religions without SURRENDERING to them.

[Drummond]

Can a mandate from your deity be evil?

Not only is the answer 'no', but it is PROVABLY 'no'.

Christianity does not offer evil mandates.

But this is not true of Islam. We have seen as much, of course. This is a great deal of why its incursions into American life must be resisted, fought against to stop that evil.

But then ... you should already have learned all that. If you haven't ... then I see no point in debating with you.

[aboutime]

Any group, or so-called religion that incites, or suggests a mandate the includes violence, or murder IS NOT A RELIGION.

It is nothing but a front, or as some like to call it...a CULT, designed to distort, and destroy humanity by using constantly repeated falsehoods described, and brainwashed into the lesser intelligent minds who are unable to determine the differences between right, wrong, and human common sense.

Anyone who believes the so-called Mandates...no matter what book, or religious belief claims to use violence, or murder as their guide in life. Is nothing less than the sickest, hate filled, enemies who bring death to those who dare not to disagree out of fear.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In my view, your first order of business MUST be to get Obama and his cronies booted out of Office, and for a Government to take its place which is prepared to dismantle the programs of so-called 'reform' he's made some progress with. Allied to that, in my view, is the first and pivotal step necessary .. one of showing the ordinary American citizen what beliefs and values America was founded to uphold.

These all go hand-in-hand, because (a) without the wreckers neutralised, (b) without the misdirection corrected, and (c) without renewed and redoubled efforts to educate America in the values it's in danger of losing, whatever progress you may make won't have the stability of faith in them which you need to make them last.

I suggest that a part of the re-education process should include critical examinations of countries such as my own. So that you can see for yourselves where losing your identity can lead. Seeing the processes whereby a country can lose itself to alien and pernicious, invasive beliefs should surely prove that equivalence in these areas is a destructive path, to be avoided.

Very tight controls on immigration is also a 'must', with absolutely every would-be immigrant required to convince officials of his or her reverence for your foundling ideals. Fail to have this in place is an invitation to invite all sorts of 'crazies' to operate within your borders. Part of the UK's problem has been the Left's insistence on making our borders porous. This has led to a deluge of immigrants not only moving in but creating whole communities alien to British values and culture.

On the basis that your extremists are by definition 'anti-American', certainly aggressive policing is called for - and with an emphasis placed on deportation of the 'undesirables'. WHY should you tolerate those intent on acting as your adversaries ?

Your Constitution enshrines freedoms within your country. However, freedom isn't there as a means to harm you, and since with freedom comes responsibility, then the responsibility to ensure that nobody uses it for that harm HAS to both exist and be acted upon. This, depending upon the severity of the problem, may need some aggressive policing of its own.

I am not calling for a 'police State' as such. What I do suggest is a reawakening of core American values which lead to an intolerance of those meaning those values harm. Identification of the nature of your country's adversaries is vital, keeping them in permanent check, ditto.

You see, in the UK, we had Lefties who'd defer to anybody, and who argued that to show intolerance was 'bigoted', 'racist', antisocial. The reality was that immigrants from foreign cultures, with their foreign religions, flooded our territory, set up communities entirely their own, created pressure groups, built their mosques, and just demanded concession after concession, all of this eroding the values and identity of our nation. Islamists in particular have no interest in integration, and though our Lefties believed they would, all they REALLY got for their efforts of 'understanding' was a 'bend to us' message.

Now, America, under the leadership of its own version of the Left, can travel our path .. and lose itself. Or, it can shake itself, wake up, regenerate an awareness of what it should REALLY stand for, and unite in its patriotic identity. It's possible to tolerate other religions without SURRENDERING to them.

Bravo.. Nicely done and complete with NO CALL for a round up I see!:clap:
Thats the trick, doing so without creating a Police State. We see how far the politicians have merrily went towards that already and how quickly those charged with the protecting started abusing that power.
Correct , first dethrone that idiot in charge now. Then repeal his monster healthcare timebomb . Then take steps to heal our economy. We surely must take a intensive study of what has happened in Britain and see how the muslim /leftist alliance there has been able to so quickly reduce that great nation to it's current state weakness and apathy. Then using that quickly gained knowledge start to address the muslim problem in our own country. The fools will as usual scream, what problem(?) but let them scream. Blind people can not be guardians of our nation and should be ignored and given exactly the respect that their ignorance warrants. For its bad enough to have to debate them without foolishly letting them shape national policy as is currently being done!--Tyr

[Missileman]

Not only is the answer 'no', but it is PROVABLY 'no'.

Christianity does not offer evil mandates.

But this is not true of Islam. We have seen as much, of course. This is a great deal of why its incursions into American life must be resisted, fought against to stop that evil.

But then ... you should already have learned all that. If you haven't ... then I see no point in debating with you.

You and Tyr are a pair of chips off the same block of wood. You guys were in that movie where you traveled across the country to return a briefcase, right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You and Tyr are a pair of chips off the same block of wood. You guys were in that movie where you traveled across the country to return a briefcase, right?

Yep same block of wood , we went to different schools together, had different parents together and even speak with different accents together.
Its simply amazing I tell ya!
If Drummonds has been in a movie he failed to mention it to me. I know that I haven been but if offered and the pays is good , Im game.-;) I can not do his Brit accent and he surely can not do mine(Southern). I do not mind at all being compared favorably with the man regardless of the intent from the author of such a comparison. In fact, I consider it quite an honor myself!
Good show missile, 'ole chap...;)-Tyr

[Drummond]

You and Tyr are a pair of chips off the same block of wood. You guys were in that movie where you traveled across the country to return a briefcase, right?:clap:

I don't know that film, sorry, but otherwise .. I appreciate the flattery ! You're most kind !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you suggesting that American muslims take an oath of loyalty to America ?

I think he is suggesting that they refuse to even attempt to use violence to further their religion's goal of domination here. If they are citizens thru naturalization they already took that oath, if citizens by birth they should have already learned to keep their religion's militant agenda in check...-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I think he is suggesting that they refuse to even attempt to use violence to further their religion's goal of domination here. If they are citizens thru naturalization they already took that oath, if citizens by birth they should have already learned to keep their religion's militant agenda in check...-Tyr

I thought since they were muslims that they could not be peaceful even if they tried. All non violent ones are just faking it until the right moment.

[tailfins]

I thought since they were muslims that they could not be peaceful even if they tried. All non violent ones are just faking it until the right moment.

Longtime forum members get your sarcasm. Lurkers and drive-by posters might miss it. Just a thought.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought since they were muslims that they could not be peaceful even if they tried. All non violent ones are just faking it until the right moment.

Try not to strain yourself there hoss. You are already on record stating that Sharia law poses no tHreat here in USA. Which is folly heaped upon sheer idiotcy. Slow down , dont burst a blood vessel , your muslim allies need your support, ok?--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Try not to strain yourself there hoss. You are already on record stating that Sharia law poses no tHreat here in USA. Which is folly heaped upon sheer idiotcy. Slow down , dont burst a blood vessel , your muslim allies need your support, ok?--Tyr

no worries--you're easy now.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

no worries--you're easy now.

Good that you believe so. Underestimating the opposition will do ya good! Try telling your muslim friends to join you in that. If you can get them to not chop off your head. They tend to not show a damn bit of appreciation to an infidel not matter how well he has shilled for them!-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought since they were muslims that they could not be peaceful even if they tried. All non violent ones are just faking it until the right moment.




http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/stealth_islamic_propaganda_shown_to_six_million_am erican_students.html


On May 16 and 17 of 2012, Channel One Network, a national distributor of educational videos and newscasts viewed daily by over 8,000 middle and high schools, aired a two-part video series, titled "Young and Muslim in America" and "Islam in America."

In "Young and Muslim in America: How being a part of Islam changed ten years ago, Part 1," students watch as Muhtasham Sifaat, 18, kneels on a prayer rug inside an empty classroom. His voiceover explains how he moved around a lot when he was younger, but Islam has given him stability. What is not revealed is that Mr. Sifaat is a political activist serving as a chapter president of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), one of the most radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America.

The MSA pledge states: "Allah is my lord. Islam is my life. The Koran is my guide. The Sunna is my practice. Jihad is my spirit. Righteousness is my character. Paradise is my goal. I enjoin what is right. I forbid what is wrong. I will fight against oppression. And I will die to establish Islam."


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/stealth_islamic_propaganda_shown_to_six_million_am erican_students.html#ixzz26shpD7wj
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stealth and deception.. Where is the outcry, where is the condemnation, where is the protection of our children from this type of indoctrination??-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/stealth_islamic_propaganda_shown_to_six_million_am erican_students.html


The MSA pledge states: "Allah is my lord. Islam is my life. The Koran is my guide. The Sunna is my practice. Jihad is my spirit. Righteousness is my character. Paradise is my goal. I enjoin what is right. I forbid what is wrong. I will fight against oppression. And I will die to establish Islam."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/stealth_islamic_propaganda_shown_to_six_million_am erican_students.html#ixzz26shpD7wj
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stealth and deception.. Where is the outcry, where is the condemnation, where is the protection of our children from this type of indoctrination??-Tyr

Again I ask , where is the outcry against this being taught/shown to 6 MILLION of our kids !!
Read what the bolded red says for Christ's sake. It is religious propaganda and includes Jihad too!

Where is the damn outcry!!!!!!!

Jihad is my spirit, followed by , paradise is my goal!

I WILL DIE TO ESTABLISH ISLAM!!!!!!!!!

ALL THREE THERE, JIHAD, PARADISE AND DIE... IN A PLEDGE..
Now ask why isnt this
MSA BEING INVESTIGATED, WHY ISNT THIS ATTEMPTED INDOCTRINATION BEING ADDRESSED? WHY IS IT BEING SHOWN TO OUR STUDENTS!!!!!!

HAVE YOU PEOPLE NO CONCERN FOR YOUR CHILDREN??????

[fj1200]

Again I ask , where is the outcry...

You already stated that was not revealed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap:

I don't know that film, sorry, but otherwise .. I appreciate the flattery ! You're most kind !

I do not know that film either. Maybe its a cartoon he speaks about. oopps, forgot they hate cartoons..
Anyways his attempt at insulting went bust.. Maybe we could start an education on that for him too. :laugh:-Tyr

[Missileman]

I do not know that film either. Maybe its a cartoon he speaks about. oopps, forgot they hate cartoons..
Anyways his attempt at insulting went bust.. Maybe we could start an education on that for him too. :laugh:-Tyr

Oh I don't know...you meatheads both thanked me for calling you "Dumb and Dumber". :laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh I don't know...you meatheads both thanked me for calling you "Dumb and Dumber". :laugh2:

Sure, we did, "chip off the same block was a compliment". Yet you can not figure out why..I find that quite funny myself..
Here is a LITTLE hint , when I am compared to a person of DRUMMOND'S CHARACTER AND STATURE I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT REGARDLESS OF THE AUTHOR'S TRUE INTENT.
Figures that you could never see that... just figures.-:laugh:-Tyr

[aboutime]

Sure, we did, "chip off the same block was a compliment". Yet you can not figure out why..I find that quite funny myself..
Here is a LITTLE hint , when I am compared to a person of DRUMMOND'S CHARACTER AND STATURE I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT REGARDLESS OF THE AUTHOR'S TRUE INTENT.
Figures that you could never see that... just figures.-:laugh:-Tyr


Funny stuff Tyr. I'd happily take that as a compliment as well. In fact. As you probably know. I rather enjoy it, as you do. When anyone uses the name calling.

I only get upset when being called names, if the person using those tactics has AGREED TO PAY MY BILLS. Then I listen.
But anyone else doesn't really matter, and they have no importance...other than what they think of themselves.

[Missileman]

Sure, we did, "chip off the same block was a compliment". Yet you can not figure out why..I find that quite funny myself..
Here is a LITTLE hint , when I am compared to a person of DRUMMOND'S CHARACTER AND STATURE I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT REGARDLESS OF THE AUTHOR'S TRUE INTENT.
Figures that you could never see that... just figures.-:laugh:-Tyr

That you think it was a compliment makes it all the funnier. I've heard of people who are too stupid to feel insulted...I may have read of some too.

[aboutime]

That you think it was a compliment makes it all the funnier. I've heard of people who are too stupid to feel insulted...I may have read of some too.


Missileman. So. Nobody here has to feel obligated to apologize to you for making you ignore being insulted?

[Missileman]

Missileman. So. Nobody here has to feel obligated to apologize to you for making you ignore being insulted?

Is English your primary language?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That you think it was a compliment makes it all the funnier. I've heard of people who are too stupid to feel insulted...I may have read of some too.

That you think you can judge what I find to be complimentary to me speaks volumes. You compare Drummonds and I together and stated that we are much alike. I having a great admiration for the honor , integrity and character of my friend Drummonds found that to be a high compliment made to me. Too bad that you fail to see the man's integrity and intelligence. Perhaps new glasses and another try at reading his posts would help you. -Tyr

[aboutime]

That you think you can judge what I find to be complimentary to me speaks volumes. You compare Drummonds and I together and stated that we are much alike. I having a great admiration for the honor , integrity and character of my friend Drummonds found that to be a high compliment made to me. Too bad that you fail to see the man's integrity and intelligence. Perhaps new glasses and another try at reading his posts would help you. -Tyr



Tyr. Didn't take us very long to learn what Missileman really suffers from here.

I think he may be jealous in many respects, based on his inability to say anything other than ask a dumb question about English being my main language. That's just so typically liberal. It more fully describes the challenges liberals face in never being personally responsible, while always depending on others to do their thinking. Hiding behind the standard name calling, accusations, and labels.

[fj1200]

Tyr. Didn't take us very long to learn what Missileman really suffers from here.

Let me guess...


That's just so typically liberal.

Yup, there it is.


It more fully describes the challenges liberals face in never being personally responsible, while always depending on others to do their thinking. Hiding behind the standard name calling, accusations, and labels.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[aboutime]

Let me guess...



Yup, there it is.



Pot. Kettle. Black.

Wrong fj. I am not a Liberal.

[fj1200]

Wrong fj. I am not a Liberal.

Didn't say you were.

Actually in retrospect it seems I may have insulted Missile; I hope he accepts my apology.

[aboutime]

Didn't say you were.

Actually in retrospect it seems I may have insulted Missile; I hope he accepts my apology.


Really? Care to explain the POT, and KETTLE?

[fj1200]

Really? Care to explain the POT, and KETTLE?

Check the bold.

[Missileman]

Didn't say you were.

Actually in retrospect it seems I may have insulted Missile; I hope he accepts my apology.

Nothing to apologize for...you weren't calling me a liberal, you were calling aboutime a hypocrite.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Really? Care to explain the POT, and KETTLE?

My friend , you know that you are trying to piss up a tree when asking a liberal or liberal appeasor to explain anything. I guess old age is catching up to you quite a bit making that kind of gross error.
You know with libs that pot is only for smoking and the only kettle that they know about is that big, gigantic , mountain sized one the government keeps dishing out freebies from .-:laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

My friend , you know that you are trying to piss up a tree when asking a liberal or liberal appeasor to explain anything. I guess old age is catching up to you quite a bit making that kind of gross error.

Care to point a couple out? Unlikely from you I suppose.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

ANOTHER REASON THAT I TAKE MY STAND... This man should have been executed for his treason! Yet he was not and that is because of the desire not to further anger Islam and the idiotic ideal that we should play softball with people that seek our complete destruction!-Tyr

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/islamic-law-in-america/

I was on Fox and Friends to discuss Abu Sulayman al-Irlandi, nee John Walker Lindh, a United States citizen and Muslim convert who was captured as an enemy combatant during the United States' 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. The "American Taliban" is serving a 20-year prison sentence for war crimes in the service of the Afghanistan's Taliban. He is a traitor of the highest order. He was captured during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, a violent Taliban prison uprising during which Central Intelligence Agency officer and great American hero Johnny "Mike" Spann was killed.

Abu Sulayman al-Irlandi, nee John Phillip Walker Lindh, is a traitor and should have faced a firing squad for his treason. He joined the jihad and actively engaged in the killing of US soldiers. He attended a lecture by Osama Bin Laden. Instead of rotting in a well-earned grave, al-Irlandi and other jihadists are suing the US government trial over high-risk Muslim terrorists congregating together for "group prayer." He should receive no further concessions.

His religion is what got him into prison. Even those who believe that he misunderstands the supposedly true peaceful teachings of Islam have to grant that he wouldn't have been fighting against American troops in Afghanistan if it weren't for his Muslim beliefs. He is not going to be associating with people who believe in peaceful, moderate Islam, but with convicted, violent Muslim felons. This will only reinforce the beliefs that led him to try to kill Americans in the first place.

[aboutime]

My friend , you know that you are trying to piss up a tree when asking a liberal or liberal appeasor to explain anything. I guess old age is catching up to you quite a bit making that kind of gross error.
You know with libs that pot is only for smoking and the only kettle that they know about is that big, gigantic , mountain sized one the government keeps dishing out freebies from .-:laugh:-Tyr





Thanks Tyr. Sure. I know. But it really is...so much fun reading, and watching them create all kinds of new excuses, or reasons to blame someone else for almost anything they WON'T DARE to honestly discuss.

What makes them so angry, mystified, frustrated, and tongue-tied so often is. They have no power to refute, or disprove honest, truthful facts.
And when they try. The lies they believe we should all take as actual, proven facts. Generally need to be repeated, or covered with more lies. So often. They honestly have no idea which lies they told us last, nor which lies they will use again. Just like the definition of INSANITY....trying something and failing, then trying the same thing again, thinking it will get a different result.
They simply CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES.
When you practice to Deceive....that Tangled Liberal Web...gets larger, and larger, and larger.

[Drummond]

My friend , you know that you are trying to piss up a tree when asking a liberal or liberal appeasor to explain anything. I guess old age is catching up to you quite a bit making that kind of gross error.
You know with libs that pot is only for smoking and the only kettle that they know about is that big, gigantic , mountain sized one the government keeps dishing out freebies from .-:laugh:-Tyr

Actually, Tyr, the British Leftie knows of another form of kettle .. well, 'Kettling', anyway.

It's what the police do when they've got hordes of the aggravating little blighters on their hands when street marches are underway. See ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16629055


The Metropolitan Police (Met) has won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during the G20 demonstrations.

The High Court ruling had been won by Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid.

They challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by officers in Bishopsgate.

But the Court of Appeal has now ruled against the High Court's decision.

Mr Moos said it was "a shame" the appeal judges could not see that the police were "out of control".

The High Court ruling, where officers were said to have used "unjustified force", led to a call from human rights lawyers for an "immediate change to police attitudes and tactics".

Police used the kettling tactic - where demonstrators are corralled inside police cordons and prevented from leaving - against the protesters in Bishopsgate, even though they had been peaceful.

The Met said the kettling was necessary to keep violent demonstrators at the Royal Exchange from "hijacking" the more peaceful climate camp, attended by up to 5,000 people.

The High Court had ruled there had been no evidence of an imminent breach of the peace to justify the kettle, which was in place for more than four hours.

Mr Moos, who was part of a peaceful protest camp, said he had become dehydrated after being refused permission to leave.

When the police announced an appeal they made it clear the judgement did not outlaw kettling, and containment tactics would continue to be used "to prevent serious disorder and violence".

The Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Sullivan, ruled against the High Court decision.

So, there you are. It's now accepted practise for our police to confine marchers in specific areas, and keep them there, for a number of hours. I've read one report which talks of confinement lasting SEVEN hours. It's a useful tactic if there's a likelihood of violent demonstrations, where the violence would otherwise extend over a far wider area.

There are times when we know EXACTLY how to treat our stroppy Lefties, folks !

[Dilloduck]

Save the World ! Kettle all Muslims !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Save the World ! Kettle all Muslims !

How about we just stop giving them that damn huge pass and admit that they are not a religion of peace! How about that for a good start?--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, Tyr, the British Leftie knows of another form of kettle .. well, 'Kettling', anyway.

It's what the police do when they've got hordes of the aggravating little blighters on their hands when street marches are underway. See ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16629055



So, there you are. It's now accepted practise for our police to confine marchers in specific areas, and keep them there, for a number of hours. I've read one report which talks of confinement lasting SEVEN hours. It's a useful tactic if there's a likelihood of violent demonstrations, where the violence would otherwise extend over a far wider area.

There are times when we know EXACTLY how to treat our stroppy Lefties, folks !

A little bit of that used on the muslims would be nice. They seem to get away with all their crap.. The usual appeasement and cowardly responding to them that lib/dems here swear by..-Tyr

[Drummond]

A little bit of that used on the muslims would be nice. They seem to get away with all their crap.. The usual appeasement and cowardly responding to them that lib/dems here swear by..-Tyr

If it was ever tried, probably Muslim pressure groups would seek to prosecute the police for it. My guess is it'd be seen as an illegal act.

Nice thought, though ! Especially the next time they decide to protest when dead British servicemen being returned from Afghanistan are shown public respect, as they were repeatedly at Wootton Bassett .. see ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6927633/Muslim-cleric-Anjem-Choudary-vows-to-continue-Wootton-Bassett-march.html


Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary has vowed to go ahead with a protest march through Wootton Bassett claiming those who honour the war dead are no different to those who support the 7/7 Tube bombers.

The controversial cleric, who heads up Islam4UK, has organised a march of 500 people through the Wiltshire town, in memory of Muslims "murdered in the name of democracy and freedom".

Wootton Bassett has become the main focal point for the nation to show its respect to the troops killed in Afghanistan, with hundreds lining the streets each time a body is repatriated to nearby RAF Lyneham.

But Choudary said it was unacceptable to honour those killed in the conflict and he would march through the town with supporters to voice opposition at the gatherings.

Asked why he was against crowds honouring fallen British soldiers, he said: "The same could be said about the Germans fighting for Nazism in the Second World War. Those involved in 7/7 and 9/11 considered themselves to be soldiers.

THERE SPEAKS SCUM.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If it was ever tried, probably Muslim pressure groups would seek to prosecute the police for it. My guess is it'd be seen as an illegal act.

Nice thought, though ! Especially the next time they decide to protest when dead British servicemen being returned from Afghanistan are shown public respect, as they were repeatedly at Wootton Bassett .. see ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6927633/Muslim-cleric-Anjem-Choudary-vows-to-continue-Wootton-Bassett-march.html



THERE SPEAKS SCUM.

That Choudary character needs a damn good ass stomping my friend. Isnt he the same muslim scum that reached inside the car window as it was driving away and hit the EDL leader in the face a while back?
Sure its illegal to criticise them but when they gather the police protect them and make counter protestors march many blocks away. When they break those same laws the police there turn a blind eye. My friend nothing but a revolution there will ever save that nation! The sooner the better!--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

A little bit of that used on the muslims would be nice. They seem to get away with all their crap.. The usual appeasement and cowardly responding to them that lib/dems here swear by..-Tyr

Appeaser.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Appeaser.

Sure am. I give my wife a massage everytime she asks and quite often when she hasnt requested one. The pay off is off the charts great..-;)
monkey dancing in the early morn hours while our son is sound asleep.. Always great..--Tyr

[Drummond]

That Choudary character needs a damn good ass stomping my friend. Isnt he the same muslim scum that reached inside the car window as it was driving away and hit the EDL leader in the face a while back?

Well, there's a lot of ass to stomp on ... :laugh:

So far as I know, Choudary hasn't attacked Tommy Robinson. But, he was prominent in the 'Islam4uk' organisation which, I think, was actually outlawed. Islam4uk was, once, one of the Muslim pressure groups that Labour was pleased to favour, to prove its 'enlightened' credentials ... but I think I'm right in saying that after they took such an offensive stance on the war dead returning from Afghanistan, even THEY decided that they couldn't be officially tolerated.

We agree on the great need the British public has to wake up to the ever-growing threat that Islam continues to pose ... absolutely so !!! ...

I've found this video link to Tommy Robinson. In it, he's being interviewed by a host by the name of Michael Coren (who holds joint British/Canadian citizenship, and was born in the UK) from an online outlet operating out of Canada. I think you'll find it interesting to watch (it comes in two parts .. you need to click for Part 2 just before Part 1 ends) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_347405&feature=iv&src_vid=17SzFxEeC54&v=t7y8ITzw-KI

As for Choudary ... here's him being interviewed by CNN, by a range of presenters ... in it, he confirms support for Osama bin Laden, his wish to see Sharia Law implemented worldwide, and at the end, he admits he's in supportive contact with people in the US, asking them to commit attacks ... he says 'Of course I am' (9 mins 10 seconds in to the clip) ... I very much like the put-down Choudary got as a consequence !!! ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHx0yxbjxgM

.. AND, FINALLY ... I found a video, Tyr, of the very attack I think you referred to ... even as I was drafting this reply to you ! The attacker is named as SAIF AL-ISLAM. You can watch the attack for yourself ... 1 min 46 seconds into the clip ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMW032VThuQ

[Jafar, if you're studying my post, I invite your comments ... about 'peaceful' Islam ... !!!!!]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, there's a lot of ass to stomp on ... :laugh:

So far as I know, Choudary hasn't attacked Tommy Robinson. But, he was prominent in the 'Islam4uk' organisation which, I think, was actually outlawed. Islam4uk was, once, one of the Muslim pressure groups that Labour was pleased to favour, to prove its 'enlightened' credentials ... but I think I'm right in saying that after they took such an offensive stance on the war dead returning from Afghanistan, even THEY decided that they couldn't be officially tolerated.

We agree on the great need the British public has to wake up to the ever-growing threat that Islam continues to pose ... absolutely so !!! ...

I've found this video link to Tommy Robinson. In it, he's being interviewed by a host by the name of Michael Coren (who holds joint British/Canadian citizenship, and was born in the UK) from an online outlet operating out of Canada. I think you'll find it interesting to watch (it comes in two parts .. you need to click for Part 2 just before Part 1 ends) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_347405&feature=iv&src_vid=17SzFxEeC54&v=t7y8ITzw-KI

As for Choudary ... here's him being interviewed by CNN, by a range of presenters ... in it, he confirms support for Osama bin Laden, his wish to see Sharia Law implemented worldwide, and at the end, he admits he's in supportive contact with people in the US, asking them to commit attacks ... he says 'Of course I am' (9 mins 10 seconds in to the clip) ... I very much like the put-down Choudary got as a consequence !!! ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHx0yxbjxgM

.. AND, FINALLY ... I found a video, Tyr, of the very attack I think you referred to ... even as I was drafting this reply to you ! The attacker is named as SAIF AL-ISLAM. You can watch the attack for yourself ... 1 min 46 seconds into the clip ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMW032VThuQ

[Jafar, if you're studying my post, I invite your comments ... about 'peaceful' Islam ... !!!!!]

Yes, thats the video of the EDL leader that I saw long ago where he was hit by that cowardly maggot. The maggot wanted him to get out of the car so there would be about 40 or 50 scum on him quickly and yes they would have beaten him until he was dead! No doubt about that. Let me say this, I watched both the vidoes of Choudary and this other maggot SAIF-AL-ISLAM AND IF I WERE EVER FACE TO FACE WITH EITHER ONE OF THEM I'D BEAT THAT MAGGOT'S WORTHLESS CARCASS TO WITHIN AN INCH OF THEIR MISERBALE LIFE. THEY ARE HATEFILLED DESTROYERS! Seekers of world domination by Islam. I can easily see the evil in both those worthless scum. DAMN COWARDS AND THEY PROVE IT EVERYTIME THEY MURDER INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDEN! And thats often if one just checks out the number of murdering attacks they carry out weekly worldwide.

Yes, its critical that Britain wakes up to the TRUE nature of the EXTREME peril that its in! And for any chance of survival its must do so likely in less than a couple years. Every day not vigorously addressing the problem decreases the odds of ever prevailing against the enemy there that has plans for your destruction! Sad to say but clearly a fact.. Islam is a destroyer and murderer and its followers are too. When it comes to being declared an apostate or acting in a violent manner against anybody or anything they each will choose to be violent! As some point out, even here they proudly point it out, there are 1.5 bilion muslims, that means well over a billion that will or would kill non-believers for simply refusing to convert to Islam. Remember their leaders are supposedly preaching direct words /commands from Allah and they will not refuse those orders. Thats why they are currently the greatest danger to the world. They have had no new testament, no reformation, they only have the one book that commands them to murder non-believers and to subjugate the entire world!

Americans MUST REMEMBER that it was Islam that attacked and murdered over 3,000 innocent American citizens on 9/11. It wasnt a nation , a city or a village . It wasnt a deranged individual... It was a religion. I for one am damn tired of the huge pass that they have been and are always given! Islam seeks our destruction and Islam is our enemy regardless of how deep we try to hide our collective heads in the sand. All the denying does is give them more time to grow larger and stronger. They already here in America have started the same type of program that they have used so successfully in Britain to bring it to its knees and about to be conquered and destroyed..

I do not give a damn who criticises me for daring to speak the truth about Islam! Dont like it tough , do something about it is my stand. I'll fight any man alive any damn time that tries to stop me from defending my family! And I dont give a damn who he is or what his reason is for trying to stop me. I made a vow that tragic day on 9/11 and nothing shall stop me from keeping it!! Absolutely nothing in this universe except death..Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

America still faces the same threat from Islam only now because of rapid changes in the ME we are facing a far more hostile and unifying force there. Who could have predicted this situation thirty years ago? Twenty years ago?Ten years ago? Now we have a soon to be nuked up Iran , a Muslim Brotherhood controlled Egypt , Syria most likely to fall and Indonesia up in arms about a silly film. Much of it thanks to obama deliberate coddling and refusal to support the old leaders instead his going with the new hardcore muslim leaders ! Certainly that shored up his muslim voting base here. The ones so many use to judge Islam by! Which is a grave mistake promoted by Islamic organizations.

A major part of the selfreputation of many Muslims living in the West, primarily those that were born and raised here is that theyare good and decent human beings by virtue of Islam. However in reality, those “Muslims” more often than not reject Islamic values and embrace Westernized ones, whether they admit it to themselves or not. They get to credit Islam without having to suffer under Islam, under its tyranny= Sharia Law. And their version of Islam is very often called “American Islam” as if there exists such a thing seperate from Islam itself.

This is the kind of dangerous nonsense that allows Islam into our culture as if it were just another part of the great American melting pot. While the many verses in the Koran command its followers to murder, rape and pillage the infidels in order to spread the power and authority of Allah across the world! Islam has not yet started a true campaign to exhort these followers to practice the violence so often seen over in the ME. For they are too valuable as "peaceful muslims", (the only ones), that put on a false face to the world for the majority!

These Muslims in name only have been naturally edified by a culture that is completely foreign to the one they came from. But they did not consciously decide to reject Islamic values and embrace Western ones. The process was implicit , it happened naturally when they were exposed to Western pro-life, values. What so many fail to realize is that a good Muslim, by our standards, is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Western Muslims have to appreciate the stark difference between Western values and Islamic values and stop pretending that they are one and the same. It’s simply not true. And one of the dangers that this poses for us in our defense against Jihad is that objectively good human beings who identify themselves as Muslim give Islam a good face, a good name, one far better than it deserves. This gives us a false impression of what we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it.

I simply refuse to live as a blinded appeasor. Any good research on Islam will bring the truth out about its evil and violence. Why so many Americans refuse to do this is astounding since they represent a very grave danger to our culture and survival! Such research must be from non-muslim sources as they have tons of propaganda out there . A great find is the testimony of a muslim that has converted to another religion. They usually give great insight into Islam and is true goals etc. Take a stand folks, you are here only because millions of brave Americans did just that in years past!-Tyr

[mundame]

As good stand up Americans what do we do about American muslims ?


Could we send them home?

I think that would be best. It IS an invasion, after all.

[fj1200]

Could we send them home?

I think that would be best. It IS an invasion, after all.

You want to send American Muslims away to another country based on religion? FDR and his internment camps have nothing on you guys.

[mundame]

You want to send American Muslims away to another country based on religion? FDR and his internment camps have nothing on you guys.


The Japanese internment camps were very appropriate, I believe: there were a gazillion Japanese spies in that community and they pretty much ALL lived exactly where the Navy ships were stationed and repaired on the California coast.

Good thing the Japanese didn't find out from their spies about the fast repair of the Yorktown.................................

It's why we won the war.

I suppose the Constitution IS a suicide pact these days, but I don't think it should be. Actions like FDR's are wholly appropriate for our national defense, IMO.

[Abbey Marie]

The Japanese internment camps were very appropriate, I believe: there were a gazillion Japanese spies in that community and they pretty much ALL lived exactly where the Navy ships were stationed and repaired on the California coast.

Good thing the Japanese didn't find out from their spies about the fast repair of the Yorktown.................................

It's why we won the war.

I suppose the Constitution IS a suicide pact these days, but I don't think it should be. Actions like FDR's are wholly appropriate for our national defense, IMO.

Don't you feel like you will be excoriated for telling the truth? In these times, people will take great pleasure in codemning you for your statements, calling you names and trying to get you fired, etc. You are a brave soul, even for just saying so on an Internet board.

[mundame]

Don't you feel like you will be excoriated for telling the truth? In these times, people will take great pleasure in codemning you for your statements, calling you names and trying to get you fired, etc. You are a brave soul, even for just saying so on an Internet board.


Very kind of you to say so, Abbey!

Yes, I take a lot of heat for my views of reality.

[fj1200]

The Japanese internment camps were very appropriate...

And wholly unconstitutional.


I suppose the Constitution IS a suicide pact these days, but I don't think it should be. Actions like FDR's are wholly appropriate for our national defense, IMO.

Who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't?

[fj1200]

Don't you feel like you will be excoriated for telling the truth? In these times, people will take great pleasure in codemning you for your statements, calling you names and trying to get you fired, etc. You are a brave soul, even for just saying so on an Internet board.

Which truth would that be? Her opinion?

[Abbey Marie]

Which truth would that be? Her opinion?

Is it your opinion that there were no Japanese spies in the area?

[fj1200]

Is it your opinion that there were no Japanese spies in the area?

:laugh:

The Ringle Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_internment#The_Ringle_Report)

In May 2011, U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal), after a year of investigation, found Charles Fahy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fahy) intentionally withheld The Ringle Report, drafted by the Office of Naval Intelligence, in order to justify the Roosevelt administration in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirabayashi_v._United_States) and Korematsu v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States). The report would have undermined the administration's position of the military necessity for such action, finding most Japanese-Americans were not a national security threat, along with allegations of communication espionage being unfounded by the FBI and Federal Communications Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission).[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_internment#cite_note-49)[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_internment#cite_note-50)

Of course that's not even the issue is it?

[mundame]

And wholly unconstitutional.



Who gets to decide when it is and when it isn't?



FDR decided; all the people who cooperated in building and setting up and running and guarding the camps and transporting the Japanese decided; and let's see ---

I get to decide, you get to decide, the Supreme Court gets to decide. And a decision gets made. FDR's decision would likely have more weight than yours or mine.

In Germany, they banished Americans and British when WWII started, or put them in detention. In America, prominent German-Americans were watched. In England, Germans were mostly interned, as Germany had a tremendous number of nationals there and spying was constant. When caught, they went to prison, and were often shot.

The British drama series Foyle's War had a good episode about a wife of a Briton for 33 years, originally from Germany, who was secretly asked to spy by her brother, and she did: air fields, IIRC. Someone came in by submarine to get her reports and they saw the lights and tracked it down, eventually. Basically, she didn't see why she shouldn't help her brother ---- and besides, she thought Britain SHOULD be German! 33 years in Britain, but she was for Germany to win the war.

[mundame]

"most Japanese-Americans were not a national security threat,"


Probably not...........the little kids, the elderly people, maybe weren't.....but the ones who WERE a national security threat, because they were spying, could have lost us the war. It hung by a thread before Midway.

It is leftwing propaganda to promote the idea that there is never any spying, never any sabotage, no terrorism happens, no religious intolerance or cultural oppression could possibly be done by our enemies ---- indeed, that we have no enemies, there is no Other, just all One World singing happy songs together.

Sometimes this looks like extreme naivetee, sometimes like a desire to see America totally overwhelmed and defeated and our culture gone. I haven't decided which is going on yet. Do you want America to be defeated and our culture gone? If so, which culture would you like to replace it, and why?

[fj1200]

FDR decided; all the people who cooperated in building and setting up and running and guarding the camps and transporting the Japanese decided; and let's see ---

I get to decide, you get to decide, the Supreme Court gets to decide. And a decision gets made. FDR's decision would likely have more weight than yours or mine.

Personally I'd rather not have some "decide" when the Constitution is or is not convenient. Do you know how many people on this exact forum who are bitching about BO and he deciding when the Constitution isn't convenient? Besides, to think you or I get to decide is laughable.


In Germany, they banished Americans and British when WWII started, or put them in detention. In America, prominent German-Americans were watched. In England, Germans were mostly interned, as Germany had a tremendous number of nationals there and spying was constant. When caught, they went to prison, and were often shot.

The British drama series Foyle's War had a good episode about a wife of a Briton for 33 years, originally from Germany, who was secretly asked to spy by her brother, and she did: air fields, IIRC. Someone came in by submarine to get her reports and they saw the lights and tracked it down, eventually. Basically, she didn't see why she shouldn't help her brother ---- and besides, she thought Britain SHOULD be German! 33 years in Britain, but she was for Germany to win the war.

Interesting. Those are a lot of countries who don't have our Constitution.

[fj1200]

"most Japanese-Americans were not a national security threat,"


Probably not...........the little kids, the elderly people, maybe weren't.....but the ones who WERE a national security threat, because they were spying, could have lost us the war. It hung by a thread before Midway.

So you agree that most were not a security threat yet you agree that everyone who fit the bill could be interned simply because of their heritage. Here's an idea, investigate those who might be and take action against those who are. Nah, crazy A' constitution just gets in the way doesn't it? :rolleyes:


It is leftwing propaganda to promote the idea that there is never any spying, never any sabotage, no terrorism happens, no religious intolerance or cultural oppression could possibly be done by our enemies ---- indeed, that we have no enemies, there is no Other, just all One World singing happy songs together.

Sometimes this looks like extreme naivetee, sometimes like a desire to see America totally overwhelmed and defeated and our culture gone. I haven't decided which is going on yet. Do you want America to be defeated and our culture gone? If so, which culture would you like to replace it, and why?

Who are you talking to? Or do you just like to go off on tangents to give cover for your non-sequitur opinions.

[mundame]

So you agree that most were not a security threat yet you agree that everyone who fit the bill could be interned simply because of their heritage. Here's an idea, investigate those who might be and take action against those who are. Nah, crazy A' constitution just gets in the way doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Right, I think it was correct to intern them all, that would stop the spying. And I also think that sending back to Muslimland any Muslims now here would be a great defense of our culture. They certainly don't allow immigration into their culture! --- nor does China nor Japan or many other countries, which are far more self-protective than Western democracies, which are pretty much allowing their culture to be undermined from inside.

I don't know why you should worry about Japanese internment by America. When Germany did concentration camps, those people were in serious trouble, and most died. Also, why be concerned about internment camps during WWII? We A-bombed the Japs! Two big cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Not to mention killing gazillions of them on their little Pacific islands and sinking their carriers and battleships. Summer camps for the Japanese in America do not seem to me much of a cruelty issue in wartime compared to the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor and us bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the firebombing of Tokyo.



Who are you talking to? Or do you just like to go off on tangents to give cover for your non-sequitur opinions.

I was talking to you. I am asking whether it is acute naivetee that causes you to think that spying and many other acts of war are not really a problem or not really happening, or whether in fact you would prefer that America be defeated entirely and our culture switched out for some other culture, and if so, which one would you rather live under?

[Dilloduck]

Right, I think it was correct to intern them all, that would stop the spying. And I also think that sending back to Muslimland any Muslims now here would be a great defense of our culture. They certainly don't allow immigration into their culture! --- nor does China nor Japan or many other countries, which are far more self-protective than Western democracies, which are pretty much allowing their culture to be undermined from inside.

I don't know why you should worry about Japanese internment by America. When Germany did concentration camps, those people were in serious trouble, and most died. Also, why be concerned about internment camps during WWII? We A-bombed the Japs! Two big cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Not to mention killing gazillions of them on their little Pacific islands and sinking their carriers and battleships. Summer camps for the Japanese in America do not seem to me much of a cruelty issue in wartime compared to the Japs bombing Pearl Harbor and us bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the firebombing of Tokyo.




I was talking to you. I am asking whether it is acute naivetee that causes you to think that spying and many other acts of war are not really a problem or not really happening, or whether in fact you would prefer that America be defeated entirely and our culture switched out for some other culture, and if so, which one would you rather live under?

Only people with slanted eyes were able to spy-----no one else could possibly have given the enemy any info.

[Abbey Marie]

:laugh:

The Ringle Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_internment#The_Ringle_Report)


Of course that's not even the issue is it?

The issue is that you stated that Mundame only has an (untrue) opinion of what happened vis a vis the Japanese. I was wondering if your opinion holds more sway. It appears that you think it does.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1409130#post1409130)
Try reading Churchill's words on Islam. A brilliant man with a brilliant comment on the curse of Islam.-Tyr
HERE IS THE SPEECH:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the
followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that
in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his
absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine,
must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of
Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the
influence of the religion paralyses the social development of
those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from
being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing
faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that
Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the
science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization
of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient
Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition,
Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)



For Drummonds
Islamism is the new bolshevismThe campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat must also end our unfinished business in Iraq, writes Margaret Thatcher



Share (http://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=180444840287&link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/12/afghanistan.politics&display=popup&redirect_uri=http://static-serve.appspot.com/static/facebook-share/callback.html&show_error=false)6
<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 110px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1347008535.html#_=1349312858890&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2 F2002%2Ffeb%2F12%2Fafghanistan.politics&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2 Fworld%2F2002%2Ffeb%2F12%2Fafghanistan.politics&related=gdnpolitics&size=m&text=Margaret%20Thatcher%3A%20Islamism%20is%20the% 20new%20bolshevism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgu.com%2Fp%2Fx2h7v%2Ftw&via=guardian" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no data-twttr-rendered="true"></IFRAME>
<IFRAME style="POSITION: static; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 90px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 20px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=I0_1349312854171 title=+1 tabIndex=0 vspace=0 marginHeight=0 src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv=m&abtk=AEIZW7QLDVcp8COC8cXw1zC25QeCW3sdzt/gd0Z5TgajlvfnDZVXkcUS86Jr1MeszNmWmo9pnsaNxEZ9LJ9U0 rKqEiDwOY2zWURbrNs6D5C623Cgm7AcKcA%3D&size=medium&hl=en-GB&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2F2002 %2Ffeb%2F12%2Fafghanistan.politics&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fv er%3DPgVur4CZWnE.en_US.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!EQ7UcY4ei DKoFGgl6g%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAItRSTNLkLf62bwEkoTNHvTDE n57hQPKjw#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_ open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conlo ad&id=I0_1349312854171&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk" frameBorder=0 width="100%" allowTransparency name=I0_1349312854171 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no hspace=0></IFRAME>

http://static.guim.co.uk/static/d3b885e2ba88ec4c06936edb9c284cc301233b9a/common/images/icon-email.pngEmail (?subject=From the Guardian: Islamism is the new bolshevism&body=I thought you might be interested in this link from the Guardian: Islamism is the new bolshevism - http://gu.com/p/x2h7v/em)




Margaret Thatcher

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), <TIME itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2002-02-12T06:26EST" pubdate>Tuesday 12 February 2002 06.26 EST</TIME>

"Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks." Milton's words perfectly describe America today. After the horror of September 11 the world has seen America gather its strength, summon its allies and proceed to wage war halfway across the globe against its enemy - and ours.
America will never be the same again. It has proved to itself and to others that it is in truth (not just in name) the only global superpower, indeed a power that enjoys a level of superiority over its actual or potential rivals unmatched by any other nation in modern times. Consequently, the world outside America should never be the same either. There will, of course, arise new threats from new directions. But as long as America works to maintain its technological lead, there is no reason why any challenge to American dominance should succeed. And that in turn will help ensure stability and peace. Yet, as President Bush has reminded Americans, there is no room for complacency. America and its allies, indeed the western world and its values, are still under deadly threat. That threat must be eliminated, and now is the time to act vigorously.

[Dilloduck]

All that stuff is history man===I thought we were talking about TODAY and NOW ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

All that stuff is history man===I thought we were talking about TODAY and NOW ?

Brilliant commentary by two amazingly brilliant and great leaders is not to be ignored. It still appplies today unless you think Islam has changed radically since then. I dont , the Koran has had no changes , Hadiths and Sura's maybe(?)--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Brilliant commentary by two amazingly brilliant and great leaders is not to be ignored. It still appplies today unless you think Islam has changed radically since then. I dont , the Koran has had no changes , Hadiths and Sura's maybe(?)--Tyr

Had to jab you about your double standards---did you notice that Thatcher didn't say who the enemy was ?

[fj1200]

The issue is that you stated that Mundame only has an (untrue) opinion of what happened vis a vis the Japanese. I was wondering if your opinion holds more sway. It appears that you think it does.

My opinion? Experts opinion? SCOTUS opinion? Yeah I think upholding the Constitution holds more sway.