Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Froderik on October 21, 2010, 12:55:59 PM
-
Welcome to the brainwashed states of America:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 ... rks-on-fox (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101021/cm_yblog_upshot/npr-fires-juan-williams-for-muslim-remarks-on-fox)
:fuckoff: :fuckoff: :fuckoff:
-
I agree it was a stupid move to fire him for the comments, but I just don't think we all need to panic every time we see someone that's dressed in "Muslim garb"?
-
. . . but I just don't think we all need to panic every time we see someone that's dressed in "Muslim garb"?
He didn't say anyone should - not even close.
Here's his response to the firing:
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth
By Juan Williams
Published October 21, 2010 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.
This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber -- as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.
And I made it clear that all Americans have to be careful not to let fears lead to the violation of anyone’s constitutional rights, be it to build a mosque, carry the Koran or drive a New York cab without the fear of having your throat slashed. Bill and I argued after I said he has to take care in the way he talks about the 9/11 attacks so as not to provoke bigotry.
This was an honest, sensitive debate hosted by O’Reilly. At the start of the debate Bill invited me, challenged me to tell him where he was wrong for stating the fact that “Muslims killed us there,” in the 9/11 attacks. He made that initial statement on the ABC program, "The View," which caused some of the co-hosts to walk off the set. They did not return until O’Reilly apologized for not being clear that he did not mean the country was attacked by all Muslims but by extremist radical Muslims.
I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.
Mary Katharine Ham, a conservative writer, joined the debate to say that it is important to make the distinction between moderate and extreme Islam for conservatives who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq on the premise that the U.S. can build up moderate elements in those countries and push out the extremists. I later added that we don’t want anyone attacked on American streets because “they heard rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and they act crazy.” Bill agreed and said the man who slashed the cabby was a “nut” and so was the Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.
My point in recounting this debate is to show this was in the best American tradition of a fair, full-throated and honest discourse about the issues of the day. -- There was no bigotry, no crude provocation, no support for anti-Muslim sentiments of any kind.
Two days later, Ellen Weiss, my boss at NPR called to say I had crossed the line, essentially accusing me of bigotry. She took the admission of my visceral fear of people dressed in Muslim garb at the airport as evidence that I am a bigot. She said there are people who wear Muslim garb to work at NPR and they are offended by my comments. She never suggested that I had discriminated against anyone. Instead she continued to ask me what did I mean and I told her I said what I meant. Then she said she did not sense remorse from me. I said I made an honest statement. She informed me that I had violated NPR’s values for editorial commentary and she was terminating my contract as a news analyst.
I pointed out that I had not made my comments on NPR. She asked if I would have said the same thing on NPR. I said yes, because in keeping with my values I will tell people the truth about feelings and opinions.
I asked why she would fire me without speaking to me face to face and she said there was nothing I could say to change her mind, the decision had been confirmed above her, and there was no point to meeting in person. To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.
I say an ideological battle because my comments on "The O’Reilly Factor" are being distorted by the self-righteous ideological, left-wing leadership at NPR. They are taking bits and pieces of what I said to go after me for daring to have a conversation with leading conservative thinkers. They loathe the fact that I appear on Fox News. They don’t notice that I am challenging Bill O’Reilly and trading ideas with Sean Hannity. In their hubris they think by talking with O’Reilly or Hannity I am lending them legitimacy. Believe me, Bill O’Reilly (and Sean, too) is a major force in American culture and politics whether or not I appear on his show.
Years ago NPR tried to stop me from going on "The Factor." When I refused they insisted that I not identify myself as an NPR journalist. I asked them if they thought people did not know where I appeared on the air as a daily talk show host, national correspondent and news analyst. They refused to budge.
This self-reverential attitude was on display several years ago when NPR asked me to help them get an interview with President George W. Bush. I have longstanding relationships with some of the key players in his White House due to my years as a political writer at The Washington Post. When I got the interview some in management expressed anger that in the course of the interview I said to the president that Americans pray for him but don’t understand some of his actions. They said it was wrong to say Americans pray for him.
Later on the 50th anniversary of the Little Rock crisis President Bush offered to do an NPR interview with me about race relations in America. NPR management refused to take the interview on the grounds that the White House offered it to me and not their other correspondents and hosts. One NPR executive implied I was in the administration’s pocket, which is a joke, and there was no other reason to offer me the interview. Gee, I guess NPR news executives never read my bestselling history of the civil rights movement “Eyes on the Prize – America’s Civil Rights Years,” or my highly acclaimed biography “Thurgood Marshall –American Revolutionary.” I guess they never noticed that "ENOUGH," my last book on the state of black leadership in America, found a place on the New York Times bestseller list.
This all led to NPR demanding that I either agree to let them control my appearances on Fox News and my writings or sign a new contract that removed me from their staff but allowed me to continue working as a news analyst with an office at NPR. The idea was that they would be insulated against anything I said or wrote outside of NPR because they could say that I was not a staff member. What happened is that they immediately began to cut my salary and diminish my on-air role. This week when I pointed out that they had forced me to sign a contract that gave them distance from my commentary outside of NPR I was cut off, ignored and fired.
And now they have used an honest statement of feeling as the basis for a charge of bigotry to create a basis for firing me. Well, now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.
Daniel Schorr, my fellow NPR commentator who died earlier this year, used to talk about the initial shock of finding himself on President Nixon’s enemies list. I can only imagine Dan’s revulsion to realize that today NPR treats a journalist who has worked for them for ten years with less regard, less respect for the value of independence of thought and embrace of real debate across political lines, than Nixon ever displayed.
-
In Re to Anne: I don't get on aeroplanes these days. Haven't flown in over 10 years. But I certainly won't blame someone for FREAKING in that situation. Call me crazy, but I don't see tolerance and such as being all that beneficial in today's political climate. Better safe than sorry.
-
Better safe than sorry.
I'm really surprised to hear you say that.
-
. . . but I just don't think we all need to panic every time we see someone that's dressed in "Muslim garb"?
He didn't say anyone should - not even close.
I read his response and I really think you're deluding yourself if you think he didn't mean that he was afraid.
-
Better safe than sorry.
I'm really surprised to hear you say that.
Why? In the context of my post it makes sense.
After what happened on 911, can you blame the guy for being afraid to get on that plane...?
-
Better safe than sorry.
I'm really surprised to hear you say that.
Why? In the context of my post it makes sense.
After what happened on 911, can you blame the guy for being afraid to get on that plane...?
Well, blame isn't the word I'd use, but I've flown plenty since then and flown with "those people" and it hasn't really given me cause for concern. But then again, it appears that I've had more encounters with Muslims that aren't "extremists". I've talked at length with them about some very touchy issues. I started out being afraid, but once I listened, researched and learned a little more about not only their religion but about Christianity and Judaism as well, I started to appreciate even more the value of a secular society. Something that Muslims in the Middle East don't enjoy. Like I said....for them it's kinda like living in a cult they can't escape. Like group. If they're not bashing America (over there), they're "stood up" and "confronted" only in their case they're very likely killed for going against the powers that be.
-
Better safe than sorry.
I'm really surprised to hear you say that.
Why? In the context of my post it makes sense.
After what happened on 911, can you blame the guy for being afraid to get on that plane...?
Well, blame isn't the word I'd use, but I've flown plenty since then and flown with "those people" and it hasn't really given me cause for concern. But then again, it appears that I've had more encounters with Muslims that aren't "extremists". I've talked at length with them about some very touchy issues. I started out being afraid, but once I listened, researched and learned a little more about not only their religion but about Christianity and Judaism as well, I started to appreciate even more the value of a secular society. Something that Muslims in the Middle East don't enjoy. Like I said....for them it's kinda like living in a cult they can't escape. Like group. If they're not bashing America (over there), they're "stood up" and "confronted" only in their case they're very likely killed for going against the powers that be.
Anne,
What is a Muslim Extremist?
A moderate Muslim is one who... this is my opinion... a Muslim who follows what Muhammad taught. Without adding to it or misrepresenting it, for whatever reason.
After 9/11, Islam perked my interest... I watched on TV the talking heads who, they always put opposites against each other... as they do with every subject, and I guess they expect us to pick whatever side we want to believe. I did not know what to believe. And, I have always been one to follow politics and Foreign Policy. The Soviets took up most of my time when I considered the world, the Cold War being as it was. So, I never really studied Islam. There were bigger fish to fry.
After 9/11 I had to take a look at this situation. We had won the Cold War and we had a basically peaceful 1990's. It was a time to relax a bit. So, after the attacks I was not getting anything from the news that satisfied me in any way whatsoever. Like I said, you could believe whatever you wanted, the media gave you that choice... I don't think they do so anymore, in regard to Islam.
So, I studied the subject. I went to Muslims... I learned Islam from Muslims. It took me a couple years to grasp Islam. Really understand it.
It is like studying the U.S. Constitution. It takes time to figure out how an Imam or Islamic Cleric reaches a decision. What they base their findings on. Islam is a very legalistic Ideology. When I talk to people who are interested about learning Islam I always counsel them to go into it thinking "law".
In our system a moderate would be someone whose opinion reflects what the founders of this country meant when they wrote the Constitution, and whatever amendments to it, the generation who added the amendment what they thought it meant when they voted for it.
An extremist, in our system, would be someone who dissembles what our forefathers meant. Deceives for their own gain. Even if no harm is meant. A moderate would be someone who fairly interprets the text.
Unfortunately, and when I began my study of Islam I expected a different result... unfortunately my studies led me to understand that Al Qaeda are the Moderate Muslims. The fairly interpret the text.
That is not the conclusion I wanted to arrive at...
-
. . . but I just don't think we all need to panic every time we see someone that's dressed in "Muslim garb"?
He didn't say anyone should - not even close.
I read his response and I really think you're deluding yourself if you think he didn't mean that he was afraid.
Concerned/worried (afraid if you like) but he didn't say we all need to panic every time we see someone dressed in Muslim garb tho - nothing even close to that. What he said was rational and completely understandable and anyone who claims they wouldn't feel the same is deluding themselves.
-
Anne,
What is a Muslim Extremist?
A moderate Muslim is one who... this is my opinion... a Muslim who follows what Muhammad taught. Without adding to it or misrepresenting it, for whatever reason.
And a Christian extremist would be one who not only follows the teachings of Jesus, but the Old Testament as well. Both are extremely violent and if we were not a secular country, we'd be stoning women to death, not eating seafood :eek: and wouldn't dare mix fabrics.
After 9/11, Islam perked my interest... I watched on TV the talking heads who, they always put opposites against each other... as they do with every subject, and I guess they expect us to pick whatever side we want to believe. I did not know what to believe. And, I have always been one to follow politics and Foreign Policy. The Soviets took up most of my time when I considered the world, the Cold War being as it was. So, I never really studied Islam. There were bigger fish to fry.
Me too, for the most part. I started looking into Islam a little bit sooner, but not much.
After 9/11 I had to take a look at this situation. We had won the Cold War and we had a basically peaceful 1990's. It was a time to relax a bit. So, after the attacks I was not getting anything from the news that satisfied me in any way whatsoever. Like I said, you could believe whatever you wanted, the media gave you that choice... I don't think they do so anymore, in regard to Islam.
I don't think they ever really "gave us a choice" as much as they weren't really paying attention.
So, I studied the subject. I went to Muslims... I learned Islam from Muslims. It took me a couple years to grasp Islam. Really understand it.
It is like studying the U.S. Constitution. It takes time to figure out how an Imam or Islamic Cleric reaches a decision. What they base their findings on. Islam is a very legalistic Ideology. When I talk to people who are interested about learning Islam I always counsel them to go into it thinking "law".
Great way to put it, especially to them.
In our system a moderate would be someone whose opinion reflects what the founders of this country meant when they wrote the Constitution, and whatever amendments to it, the generation who added the amendment what they thought it meant when they voted for it.
Eh.....I'm not so sure. There are a lot of people that say they're "Constitutionalists", but they really have no idea what's actually in it. Case in point, Christine O'Donnell (Tea Party darling) just the other night said that she didn't know that the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" was in the First Amendment. When it was pointed out, her statement was "The First Amendment really says that?" My jaw dropped to the floor.
An extremist, in our system, would be someone who dissembles what our forefathers meant. Deceives for their own gain. Even if no harm is meant. A moderate would be someone who fairly interprets the text.
I disagree for the very example I gave above. If some of these Tea Partiers had their way, there'd be no pre-marital sex, no gays, no choice in abortion, creationism would be taught in science class, etc. Hell, if O'Donnell had her way, we wouldn't be "allowed" to masturbate! Seriously!
Unfortunately, and when I began my study of Islam I expected a different result... unfortunately my studies led me to understand that Al Qaeda are the Moderate Muslims. The fairly interpret the text.
While I disagree with that assessment, sort of the same could be said about strict Christians. If you really read the Bible, it's not a pretty sight.
That is not the conclusion I wanted to arrive at...
I would imagine so.
-
October 18, 2010
It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'
By R.C. Marsh
From a utilitarian perspective, it's simple. The average person faces greater danger from radicalized Muslims than from other dangers that we also fear, such as sharks or lightning.
* According to the ISAF, in 2009, there were 61 unprovoked shark attacks worldwide, resulting in five deaths and 56 injured.
* Lightning is more dangerous than sharks. According to NOAA, in 2009, 34 Americans died from lightning strikes. Worldwide, the estimate is about a thousand deaths and five thousand injuries annually.
* But radical Islamic terrorism is even more dangerous. According to the U.S. State Department report on terrorist attacks in 2009, "about one half" of the 10,999 identified terrorist attacks worldwide were associated with Sunni Islamists. That's the high end of the scale. By contrast, another list showing only attacks involving Islamic radicals indicates that they were only responsible for about 1,900 world-wide attacks in 2009. Still, those resulted in more than nine thousand deaths and 18,500 injuries.
The average person is thirty times more likely to be attacked by a Muslim than a shark, and hundreds of times more likely to be killed by one. But it's not wrong to be "Sharkophobic," even though the risk is infinitely small. There are good reasons to fear sharks.
* 1) Predatory - Sharks are dangerous predators that attack when we are vulnerable. Their attacks are sudden, unexpected, and very hard to defend against.
* 2) Single-minded - Sharks are single-minded and pursue their own objectives. This predatory behavior is controlled by instincts and criteria that I don't understand.
* 3) Uncaring - Sharks don't care about me or my concerns. I cannot get a shark to accept me as a person of value worthy of life.
* 4) Fear - The shark's reputation as a cold-blooded killer causes the mere appearance of one to produce fear.
Unfortunately, the reality is that there are also some Muslims who fit the same basic criteria.
* 1) Predatory - Radical Muslims are also dangerous predators who attack when we are vulnerable. Their attacks are sudden, unexpected, and very hard to defend against.
* 2) Single-minded - Radicalized Muslims are single-minded and pursue only their own objectives. This predatory behavior is controlled by a worldview and a set of criteria that few of us understand. (Further, those who do understand it make it clear that we could not accept it as normative without massively disruptive changes to our lives.)
* 3) Uncaring - Radicalized Muslims do not care about me or my concerns. In fact, they do not value anyone who doesn't precisely share their own specific interpretations of Islam. (As a result, the vast majority of their victims are also Muslim.)
* 4) Fear - It is the intent of these radicals to produce fear -- that's why we call them "terrorists." Terror is part of the method they employ to get compliance to their demands. It should not surprise us when they succeed in generating fear that greatly contributes to "Islamophobia."
* 5) Announced Intent -- There is a fifth dangerous element unique to these people. They have repeatedly "declared war" on us, our religion, our political system, and our way of life. As proof of their intent, they have conducted violent attacks inside our country, using attackers who live among us and hide their malicious intent until it is too late. Their deception involves extensive lying and efforts to appear "normal" so that they can attack without warning.
o Who would have thought that a mild-mannered Saudi national, who was college-educated in Germany and who had been in this country for more than a year learning to fly commercial jets, would have led the most vicious attack against civilians in U.S. history?
o Who would have thought that a U.S.-born practicing psychiatrist, an Army officer, sent through medical school by the Army, would have unexpectedly attacked random soldiers in his own workplace, killing thirteen and wounding thirty?
Therefore, it is logical to be fearful of Muslims because a tiny percentage of them, who deliberately deceive everyone about their intentions, might be extremely dangerous.
Unfortunately, this is bad for the rest of the Islamic faith. We can't tell them apart -- until it is too late. It seems to me that this logical fear will cause the Muslim faith as a whole to suffer growing isolation. Since I fear sharks, I do not go into the water when they are around, and I get out if they show up. The same withdrawal reaction is rational when dealing with Islamic radicals.
How do we counter "Islamophobia"?
It has been thoroughly proven that prejudice is not helpful to our society. But addressing the five elements that cause rational "Islamophobia" will require at least two things.
The most important thing will be for most of the leaders of the Muslim world to repeatedly make clear, public distinctions between those who are peaceful and those who are not. That's the only way in which those of us outside of Islam can know whom we can trust and whom we should avoid. It will have to be done over and over. But to do it will call for tremendous bravery on the part of those who want to pursue peace. By repudiating radical Islam, those leaders will become instant targets for those who want to dominate the world. Those of us outside the Muslim faith need to recognize and respect that courage. Whoever takes the lead on this issue in Islam will be showing true gallantry to the entire world.
The other important step will be for average people to experience frequent relationships with non-radical Muslims. Reality and experience show us that the most effective way to get over our "Islamophobia" is by building relationships among ordinary people, millions of times. That takes many years and cannot be rushed nor forced. Efforts to force that outcome will simply raise the walls of "Islamophobia" while denying its existence.
I've always found that honesty is the best policy in any relationship.
So, peaceful Muslims, please accept our apologies in advance.
Let us honestly say that when we may appear "Islamophobic," we think that we are actually just being "prudent." Over time, a relationship will develop between us, and trust will build. But this will take time, probably years.
Further, expect us to draw back each time the radicals trigger a surprise attack in the West. We will back off some because people like Major Hasan bring the danger to our minds again.
But if you're willing to take the time, I think you'll find that most Americans are, too. I know that I will. We are a kind and generous people who are worthy of your time.
-
October 18, 2010
It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'
By R.C. Marsh
I'd respect it more if it was from a more unbiased source and not a conservative "think tank".
The American Thinker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, military strategy, and the survival of the State of Israel.[2]
-
October 18, 2010
It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'
By R.C. Marsh
I'd respect it more if it was from a more unbiased source and not a conservative "think tank". Edited to add: do you have any thoughts on what I wrote above?
The American Thinker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, military strategy, and the survival of the State of Israel.[2][/quote]
-
Anne,
What is a Muslim Extremist?
A moderate Muslim is one who... this is my opinion... a Muslim who follows what Muhammad taught. Without adding to it or misrepresenting it, for whatever reason.
And a Christian extremist would be one who not only follows the teachings of Jesus, but the Old Testament as well. Both are extremely violent and if we were not a secular country, we'd be stoning women to death, not eating seafood :eek: and wouldn't dare mix fabrics.
After 9/11, Islam perked my interest... I watched on TV the talking heads who, they always put opposites against each other... as they do with every subject, and I guess they expect us to pick whatever side we want to believe. I did not know what to believe. And, I have always been one to follow politics and Foreign Policy. The Soviets took up most of my time when I considered the world, the Cold War being as it was. So, I never really studied Islam. There were bigger fish to fry.
Me too, for the most part. I started looking into Islam a little bit sooner, but not much.
After 9/11 I had to take a look at this situation. We had won the Cold War and we had a basically peaceful 1990's. It was a time to relax a bit. So, after the attacks I was not getting anything from the news that satisfied me in any way whatsoever. Like I said, you could believe whatever you wanted, the media gave you that choice... I don't think they do so anymore, in regard to Islam.
I don't think they ever really "gave us a choice" as much as they weren't really paying attention.
So, I studied the subject. I went to Muslims... I learned Islam from Muslims. It took me a couple years to grasp Islam. Really understand it.
It is like studying the U.S. Constitution. It takes time to figure out how an Imam or Islamic Cleric reaches a decision. What they base their findings on. Islam is a very legalistic Ideology. When I talk to people who are interested about learning Islam I always counsel them to go into it thinking "law".
Great way to put it, especially to them.
In our system a moderate would be someone whose opinion reflects what the founders of this country meant when they wrote the Constitution, and whatever amendments to it, the generation who added the amendment what they thought it meant when they voted for it.
Eh.....I'm not so sure. There are a lot of people that say they're "Constitutionalists", but they really have no idea what's actually in it. Case in point, Christine O'Donnell (Tea Party darling) just the other night said that she didn't know that the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" was in the First Amendment. When it was pointed out, her statement was "The First Amendment really says that?" My jaw dropped to the floor.
An extremist, in our system, would be someone who dissembles what our forefathers meant. Deceives for their own gain. Even if no harm is meant. A moderate would be someone who fairly interprets the text.
I disagree for the very example I gave above. If some of these Tea Partiers had their way, there'd be no pre-marital sex, no gays, no choice in abortion, creationism would be taught in science class, etc. Hell, if O'Donnell had her way, we wouldn't be "allowed" to masturbate! Seriously!
Unfortunately, and when I began my study of Islam I expected a different result... unfortunately my studies led me to understand that Al Qaeda are the Moderate Muslims. The fairly interpret the text.
While I disagree with that assessment, sort of the same could be said about strict Christians. If you really read the Bible, it's not a pretty sight.
That is not the conclusion I wanted to arrive at...
I would imagine so.
Anne,
If Christianity were like Islam then we would be living in a Christian Republic. Why is there is no Christian Republic in this world? Why is there such a difference between the Western World and Islamic World if there is no difference, if one is like the other?
Christians have never stoned people. Didn't Jesus say that whoever is without sin, cast the first stone?
Again, what is a Moderate Muslim? One who disregards what their religion calls for?
An extremist is one who follows what Muhammad commands?
What is a moderate cannibal? Instead of eating human flesh... they just trade recipes?
-
If Christianity were like Islam then we would be living in a Christian Republic. Why is there is no Christian Republic in this world? Why is there such a difference between the Western World and Islamic World if there is no difference, if one is like the other?
Christians have never stoned people. Didn't Jesus say that whoever is without sin, cast the first stone?
Again, what is a Moderate Muslim? One who disregards what their religion calls for?
An extremist is one who follows what Muhammad commands?
What is a moderate cannibal? Instead of eating human flesh... they just trade recipes?
Good questions, now i think we are getting somewhere.
-
Anne,
If Christianity were like Islam then we would be living in a Christian Republic. Why is there is no Christian Republic in this world? Why is there such a difference between the Western World and Islamic World if there is no difference, if one is like the other?
Because the Middle East is a Third World country run by religious zealots. Edited to add....i.e. a theocracy, unlike America.
Christians have never stoned people.
What???? You can't be serious.
Again, what is a Moderate Muslim? One who disregards what their religion calls for?
In my experience, the same as a moderate Christian.....one who takes the good from the Bible and leaves out the violence and truly icky stuff.
An extremist is one who follows what Muhammad commands?
That's a pretty open ended question. Is a Christian extremist one who follows what Jesus and Moses command?
What is a moderate cannibal? Instead of eating human flesh... they just trade recipes?
Now that one I really don't get.
-
Anne,
If Christianity were like Islam then we would be living in a Christian Republic. Why is there is no Christian Republic in this world? Why is there such a difference between the Western World and Islamic World if there is no difference, if one is like the other?
Because the Middle East is a Third World country run by religious zealots. Edited to add....i.e. a theocracy, unlike America.
Christians have never stoned people.
What???? You can't be serious.
Again, what is a Moderate Muslim? One who disregards what their religion calls for?
In my experience, the same as a moderate Christian.....one who takes the good from the Bible and leaves out the violence and truly icky stuff.
An extremist is one who follows what Muhammad commands?
That's a pretty open ended question. Is a Christian extremist one who follows what Jesus and Moses command?
What is a moderate cannibal? Instead of eating human flesh... they just trade recipes?
Now that one I really don't get.
It's more than the Middle East. It's Iran. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia.
Who was the person stoned by a Christian? Name one, in all of the history of Christianity.
Again, if Islam and Christianity are the same, then why are there no Christian Republics? Why?
Doesn't it seem kind of odd to you that are none? Doesn't that give you pause? Make you wonder?
-
It's more than the Middle East. It's Iran. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia.
And you don't consider those Third World countries?
Who was the person stoned by a Christian? Name one, in all of the history of Christianity.
I could start with the Crusades and the Inquisition, but if you'd like something more recent.....
THE HISTORY OF CANING IN SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND BRUNEI
The penal legislation in what used to be "British Malaya" -- the peninsular part of present-day Malaysia, plus Singapore -- has its historical roots in the criminal laws of England and India.
While not stoning, per se......same idea.
Again, if Islam and Christianity are the same, then why are there no Christian Republics? Why?
According to Buzz, WE are.....but my answer is because most of the Western nations have evolved ::OMG:: and become secular.
Doesn't it seem kind of odd to you that are none? Doesn't that give you pause? Make you wonder?
No.....there are all kinds of nations that have evolved beyond the insanity of religious rule. The Middle East hasn't been able to, they've remained a theocracy.
-
It's more than the Middle East. It's Iran. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia.
And you don't consider those Third World countries?
Who was the person stoned by a Christian? Name one, in all of the history of Christianity.
I could start with the Crusades and the Inquisition, but if you'd like something more recent.....
THE HISTORY OF CANING IN SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND BRUNEI
The penal legislation in what used to be "British Malaya" -- the peninsular part of present-day Malaysia, plus Singapore -- has its historical roots in the criminal laws of England and India.
While not stoning, per se......same idea.
Again, if Islam and Christianity are the same, then why are there no Christian Republics? Why?
According to Buzz, WE are.....but my answer is because most of the Western nations have evolved ::OMG:: and become secular.
Doesn't it seem kind of odd to you that are none? Doesn't that give you pause? Make you wonder?
No.....there are all kinds of nations that have evolved beyond the insanity of religious rule. The Middle East hasn't been able to, they've remained a theocracy.
Blaming the British for Malaysia?
Why not blame them for what Jordanians do?
Malaysia is an Islamic country.
There is a reason that Islamic nations are the way they are. Why they have not modernized. It's not a mystery.
-
Blaming the British for Malaysia?
No, referencing Christian rule
There is a reason that Islamic nations are the way they are. Why they have not modernized. It's not a mystery.
You're right.....it's not. They're still theocracies. If we were ruled by Christian law, we'd be in deep shit.
-
the Middle East is a Third World country run by religious zealots.
Dose this make the brutality and murder commanded by Islam excusable?
Why are these nations "third world"? After all, those in the middle east are very wealthy. Why are they run by zealots?
Could it have anything to do with the nature of Islam - as opposed to say Judaism or Presbyterianism?
Aren't Singapore and Malaysia and so on in that region Buddist, Hindi or Islamic? Anyway - Christians are in the minority.
And caining people isn't beheading them for teaching girls to read; or stoning them to death for having been accused of adultery.
The crusades and inquisition are both products of actions that are against the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Again - quite a different story with Islamic violence which is commanded by Mohamed. This might have something to do with why you don't have Christians and Jews beheading people in the streets today - and Muslims who do.
-
October 18, 2010
It's Logical to Be 'Islamophobic'
By R.C. Marsh
do you have any thoughts on what I wrote above? All I saw was a copy/paste from an obvious conservative think tank.
-
the Middle East is a Third World country run by religious zealots.
Dose this make the brutality and murder commanded by Islam excusable?
Of course not! Why would you assume that I said anything close to that? It's offering an explanation as to the differences between the countries.
Why are these nations "third world"? After all, those in the middle east are very wealthy. Why are they run by zealots?
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or just denying reality. What is the standard of living for the 'average joe' in those countries?
Could it have anything to do with the nature of Islam - as opposed to say Judaism or Presbyterianism?
Well, of course,......but that's what happens when you have a theocracy.
Aren't Singapore and Malaysia and so on in that region Buddist, Hindi or Islamic? Anyway - Christians are in the minority.
They're a mix, but Christians being in the minority there has nothing to do with the discussion.
And caining people isn't beheading them for teaching girls to read; or stoning them to death for having been accused of adultery.
And since we're a secular country and not a theocracy, people aren't stoned to death for committing adultery.
The crusades and inquisition are both products of actions that are against the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
Just as a lot of what is done in the name of Islam goes against its teachings, if you actually knew anything about the actual religion and didn't listen to people like Rush, Glenn, Sarah, Christine etc.
Again - quite a different story with Islamic violence which is commanded by Mohamed.
For a self proclaimed Christian, you sure don't seem to know much about the Bible and its teachings.
This might have something to do with why you don't have Christians and Jews beheading people in the streets today - and Muslims who do.
I'll say it again........THEOCRACY! Thank whomever we live in a secular nation!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm done, I'm cooked, good night and peace to us all!
:peace:
-
Of course not! Why would you assume that I said anything close to that? It's offering an explanation as to the differences between the countries.
I wasn't assuming - I was asking. I have heard this given as an excuse before - that they can't be held to common standards of civilized decency because of their third world totalitarian existence.
What is the standard of living for the 'average joe' in those countries?
It varies, but I get your point. My point is - why is that? Could the nature of Islam have something to do with it?
but that's what happens when you have a theocracy.
And why don't Christians and Jews have Totalitarian Theocracies? Could it have anything to do with the nature of Judaic/Christian charity, heritage, justice, and faith?
Just as a lot of what is done in the name of Islam goes against its teachings, if you actually knew anything about the actual religion and didn't listen to people like Rush, Glenn, Sarah, Christine etc.
I don't listen to Rush - don't know who Christine is - don't hear much from Sarah ( I assume you mean Palin) and Glen I do sometimes watch but have not heard him say much at all about Islam.
I am no expert on Islam but I do know about the Islaimc principal of (dam - how do you spell it?) Abrogation?? Anyway - it being that when passages contradict the later one supersedes the earlier one. In the Quran, all (every single one) the verses speaking of peace towards others are abrogated by later passages demanding their murder. The Islamic clerics who speak of their "peaceful" faith know this and are practicing Taquiea (again - I can't spell it) but it is the accepted practice of lying to the infidels to protect and advance Islam.
The Muslim is encouraged to lie to advance their faith. The Christian and Jew are forbidden to do so. This also might have something to do with the different kinds of society each has developed.
-
Of course not! Why would you assume that I said anything close to that? It's offering an explanation as to the differences between the countries.
I wasn't assuming - I was asking. I have heard this given as an excuse before - that they can't be held to common standards of civilized decency because of their third world totalitarian existence.
Just asking this question........ Dose this make the brutality and murder commanded by Islam excusable?
implies that that's what I was saying.
You see it as an "excuse", I see it as an explanation. They haven't been exposed to anything other than what their theocratic leaders have allowed them to be. Facts, science and information in general is dangerous to those in power, so they control it.
What is the standard of living for the 'average joe' in those countries?
It varies, but I get your point. My point is - why is that? Could the nature of Islam have something to do with it?
No, I think it's due to a couple of things. Greed and the fact that they're a theocracy and therefore access to information is strictly controlled, lest the population start to learn anything that contradicts what their leaders are telling them. Hell, that's part of what religion is for....to keep control of the peasants. That's the danger of a theocracy.....you're under the rule of someone's interpretation of a religion.
And why don't Christians and Jews have Totalitarian Theocracies?
That's an odd way to phrase that but.....because the FF were smart enough to realize that governing according to ANY religion is a very bad and dangerous idea. America isn't a theocracy at all (thank FSM!), which is why we don't have to put up with living under ANY type of religious law.
Could it have anything to do with the nature of Judaic/Christian charity, heritage, justice, and faith?
No, I think it's because we're not ruled by religion. I really don't know how else to communicate that to you. And I do think you have a blind spot when it comes to the JudeoChristian faith/religion. You can see no wrong in it at all. I asked you a while back to explain to me why you thought the Bible was an historical text and what I got from you was a wall of text quoting the Bible, that basically said "because God said so, He said it right there in the Bible".
I don't listen to Rush - don't know who Christine is - don't hear much from Sarah ( I assume you mean Palin) and Glen I do sometimes watch but have not heard him say much at all about Islam.
You quote sites like Townhall, World Net Daily, The American Thinker - all fairly extreme conservative (socially at least) sites along with religious sites. That's not getting your information from what I would consider well rounded or objective sources.
I am no expert on Islam but I do know about the Islaimc principal of (dam - how do you spell it?) Abrogation?? Anyway - it being that when passages contradict the later one supersedes the earlier one. In the Quran, all (every single one) the verses speaking of peace towards others are abrogated by later passages demanding their murder. The Islamic clerics who speak of their "peaceful" faith know this and are practicing Taquiea (again - I can't spell it) but it is the accepted practice of lying to the infidels to protect and advance Islam.
The Muslim is encouraged to lie to advance their faith. The Christian and Jew are forbidden to do so. This also might have something to do with the different kinds of society each has developed.
Could you please cite some unbiased sources for that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd like to see for myself what you're basing that on.
-
Pirate lady writes:
That's the danger of a theocracy.....you're under the rule of someone's interpretation of a religion.
Which is why I encourage people to read it for themselves; and is at least partly why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees and Sadducees.
I asked you a while back to explain to me why you thought the Bible was an historical text and what I got from you was a wall of text quoting the Bible, that basically said "because God said so, He said it right there in the Bible".
If it isn't a lot of trouble, I'd like to review that post. I may have sent a lot of text but I doubt all I had to say was b/c God says so. What is in the Bible is a lot of stuff - including a great deal of history - which is co-oberated by other ancient historians and more and more often by modern archeology. But I probably would support my argument with a Jewish or Christian source as it happens to be Jewish and Christian sources that are interested enough in the topic to do the research and write the papers.
You quote sites like Townhall, World Net Daily, The American Thinker - all fairly extreme conservative (socially at least) sites along with religious sites. That's not getting your information from what I would consider well rounded or objective sources.
Yeah, I'm guilty of using conservative sources. Keep in mind, your generally asking me why I think as I do - and I am generally trying to show you - so I'm going to use what ever source I can find (with out to much trouble) that explains it - and it is going to be from a conservative source. What well rounded and objective source would you have me use? Frankly - I don't know of one that is free of bias one way or another. I will say again, you are doing yourself a diss-service to ignore information and opinions solely b/c they come from a conservative writer. It's not garbage just b/c you disagree - and it is at least a little bit possible you might be mistaken.
I'll just suggest this - if you really want to know about a topic - Google it and read what ever source you fine acceptably well rounded; if you want my opinion I'll give it - but it will be probably be pretty conservative.
Which brings me to this:
Could you please cite some unbiased sources for that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd like to see for myself what you're basing that on.
Islam+Abrogation
Islam+Taqiyya
Google the terms together and read (or view) what ever sources you find acceptable.
-
First I want to say I realize some of my recent posts do read as if I'm maybe being a smart ass - this is not my intent or the tone I'd use if actually "talking".
Now - a question relating to the thread topic:
Should the person who said the following be charged with a hate crime?
"We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that...Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."
-
First I want to say I realize some of my recent posts do read as if I'm maybe being a smart ass - this is not my intent or the tone I'd use if actually "talking".
Same here. :peace:
Now - a question relating to the thread topic:
Should the person who said the following be charged with a hate crime?
"We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that...Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."
I'll tackle the statement later (source please?), but short answer.....no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
-
deleted for duplication
-
First I want to say I realize some of my recent posts do read as if I'm maybe being a smart ass - this is not my intent or the tone I'd use if actually "talking".
Same here. :peace:
Now - a question relating to the thread topic:
Should the person who said the following be charged with a hate crime?
"We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that...Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."
I'll tackle the statement later (source please?), but short answer.....no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
http://http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/court-date-for-elisabeth-sabaditsch.html
-
First I want to say I realize some of my recent posts do read as if I'm maybe being a smart ass - this is not my intent or the tone I'd use if actually "talking".
Same here. :peace:
Now - a question relating to the thread topic:
Should the person who said the following be charged with a hate crime?
"We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that...Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."
I'll tackle the statement later (source please?), but short answer.....no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
http://http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/court-date-for-elisabeth-sabaditsch.html
Thanks!
-
First I want to say I realize some of my recent posts do read as if I'm maybe being a smart ass - this is not my intent or the tone I'd use if actually "talking".
Same here. :peace:
Now - a question relating to the thread topic:
Should the person who said the following be charged with a hate crime?
"We need public awareness of the danger posed by Islam. Education needs to be state of the art, eg biology. History. Students need to be taught facts. There was a Turkish siege [in 1683], and they were badly beaten. That must remain [in history books]. No tolerance for the glorification of violence! And that means we have to get rid of most of the Quran. We must realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Trojan horse. Turkey is part of that...Sharia is an absolute no-no. We d not want any gender apartheid, no ghettos, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."
I'll tackle the statement later (source please?), but short answer.....no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
http://http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/10/court-date-for-elisabeth-sabaditsch.html
Thanks!
That's about something that's happening in Amsterdam, not here.
-
That's about something that's happening in Amsterdam, not here.
If we don't stand up as a nation and demand the PC lies and distortion stop, it is just a matter of time Anne, before that is us.
From Women in Green:
Just the Facts, Imam
by Daniel Greenfield
August 16, 2010
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08 ... -imam.html (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/just-facts-imam.html)
Just the facts, Imam. A Muslim terrorist attack damaged a building,
allowing Muslims to pick it up for a fraction of the price, in order
to build a mosque on the spot. Some people might say that sort of
thing is tacky. A little like coming by to make an offer on the house,
after your cousin murdered the entire family who lived there. Sure,
you might claim that you're not responsible, but it just doesn't look
good. Especially once you start palling around with your cousin, and
suggesting that maybe he was just misunderstood. And maybe that family
brought it on themselves.
But the media still insists that Islam had nothing to do with 9/11. Or
if it had anything to do with 9/11, it was those "other Muslims", not
these Muslims. The media isn't really good at explaining the
difference between these Muslims and those Muslims. Often the media
insists that those Muslims are actually these Muslims. Sometimes they
claim that those Muslims are actually not Muslims at all, but people
who are upset about foreclosures and work related stress.
When Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, the media spent thousands
of pounds of ink claiming that he was suffering from some airborne
form of PTSD that he picked up from the soldiers he was abusing-- all
evidence to the contrary. When the Times Square Bomber tried to kill a
few thousand New Yorkers, the media claimed that he was upset because
his house had been foreclosed on. Inconveniently enough, he turned out
to be a Muslim terrorist, complete with his very own Al Queda
martyrdom video.
But the media has never actually said those five little words. "Sorry
America, we were wrong." Because the media is never wrong. Sometimes
they're just technically incorrect. Sometimes the facts just don't
agree with their reality. And the reality can get pretty hazy down on
the other side of the Reality Based Community. Especially when there's
enough drugs in the mix. And even when it's just the liberal Kool Aid
talking.
So when it comes to Muslims, the media doesn't exactly have a great
track record of telling apart "these Muslims" from "those Muslims".
After 9/11 the media did multiple interviews with a kindly and
friendly Imam, by the name of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Anwar explained to
every media outlet that would listen that Islam is opposed to
terrorism and anyone who thinks otherwise misunderstood one of those
12,000 "You Shall Smite the Infidel" verses in the Koran. After doing
enough interviews on NPR and PBS, Anwar Al-Awlaki is hiding from US
drones somewhere in Yemen, and has been linked to both the Fort Hood
Massacre and the Times Square Bomber.
You might think that Anwar Al-Awlaki snapped after enough appearances
on PBS and NPR, whose soft calming music and lobotomized hosts could
turn anyone into a terrorist, but Al-Awlaki was actually advising the
9/11 hijackers, even before the attacks happened. So when Anwar
Al-Awlaki was telling the press that Islam is opposed to terrorism, he
was asking them to ignore everything the FBI and CounterJihadi sites
had found. Which they happily did.
What that all adds up to is that the media's proven ability to
handicap who is or isn't a Muslim terrorist is about as good as Crazy
Blind Louie's ability to handicap horse races in China, when he
doesn't speak Chinese and has been trapped in a coma for the last 3
years. At this point if the media tells you that someone isn't a
Muslim terrorist, the Vegas odds are on the side of him being Osama
bin Laden's right hand man. If the media tells you that an Imam is
moderate, run to within 50 feet away to avoid the shrapnel.
The media's approach to Islamic terrorism is a lot like Pat Buchanan's
approach to the Holocaust. They will concede that terrorism probably
does exist, and it might involve Muslims, but it's not as bad as
people make it out to be, there's a lot of context, and anyway look at
the history of it. It's not as if we're defending them, except we're
writing all these articles explaining how we shouldn't have been
fighting them in the first place. And really what did we get out of
the war anyway?
Finally the media plays its trump card. Religious freedom. It's in the
Constitution, Man! And who has never doubted the media's commitment to
religious freedom, except when it comes to prayer in schools or in the
military. Or their commitment to the Bill of Rights, which they would
die for, except for the parts they don't like very much.
Certainly the media has a point, when it argues that it's wrong to
claim that a house of worship shouldn't be built, because it's
offensive. The media has never been known to do that. Except when they
actually claim that houses of worship can be destroyed, because
they're offensive.
5 years ago, the good Muslims of Gaza decided to torch a bunch of
synagogues. Naturally the media got very outraged about it. Well, not
exactly. The media actually enthusiastically endorsed the burning of
synagogues. Why? Because synagogues in Gaza are innately offensive.
While a synagogue was being vandalized by a gleeful Muslim mob, CNN's
Matthew Chance explained:
This structure behind me --very controversial because it is the Jewish
synagogue in the middle of Netzarim. The Israeli cabinet, of course,
voting to leave those synagogues standing, very much angering the
Palestinian Authority, because they know that these buildings are seen
very much by the vast majority of Palestinians as potent symbols of
the Israeli occupation and could not be protected or even left
standing. And so we're seeing very sensitive scenes here over the past
few hours as the Palestinian security forces move the civilians out of
that synagogue and move their bulldozers in to take away these
structures, again, seen as hated symbols of the Israeli occupation.
A mere 5 years ago, CNN justified the destruction of Jewish synagogues
because they're offensive. It described the destruction of a House of
Worship as "take away these structures", a lovely euphemism that
Goebbels probably couldn't have improved on. A euphemism that suggests
the synagogue was being taken somewhere for a walk. Or maybe to a
better place. Instead of being crudely demolished, after it had been
burned and ransacked by a Muslim mob.
But today CNN can't fathom the media that someone would find building
a house of worship offensive, particularly when it's built next to a
virtual cemetery of the victims of that particular brand of worship.
Yet in 2005, CNN was willing to justify the actual destruction of a
house of worship because it's "offensive". What a difference 5 years
and a different religion makes.
But perhaps CNN could extend the same "sensitivity" they displayed for
the mobs of Gaza, to their fellow Americans, who might conceivably
view a mosque near Ground Zero as "a symbol of occupation". One that
would have to be taken away very sensitively. Perhaps all the way back
to Mecca. Sensitively, of course.
And this wasn't some sort of bizarre CNN fluke either. This is how
Reuters gleefully painted the scene: "Attacking symbols of the hated
Israeli occupation, youths set ablaze several of the synagogues". And
here's a lovely one from the London Telegraph: "The skies were yet to
be lit by the rising sun when the first flames from burning synagogues
could be seen, set alight by Palestinians incensed by years when the
Israeli army ruthlessly defended the settlements." It's amazing how
much poetry is called up from the journalistic soul at the sight of
burning synagogues. If you didn't know any better, you might actually
think they enjoyed seeing synagogues destroyed.
But of course that would be ridiculous. I mean just take a look at
this excitable chunk of prose from Ken Ellingwood and Laurie King:
"Many vented their fury over the occupation by laying waste to the
synagogues that Israeli authorities chose to leave standing. At the
Neve Dekalim synagogue, a hulking Star of David-shaped building
visible from miles away, a club-wielding crowd had descended by early
morning to smash every window and tear insulation from the walls and
ceilings." You get the feeling that Ken and Laurie would have been
just as excited to be up and about during Kristallnacht. And if Ken or
Laurie had decided to take a club to that hateful Star of David shaped
building, surely no one would have been too surprised.
But I direct your attention to more than just the purple prose. When
Ken and Laurie and CNN and Reuters and the Telegraph don't like
synagogues, then they're "hulking", destroying them becomes a matter
of "sensitively" "taking them down" and the synagogues have it coming,
because those damn Jews "chose to leave them standing."
It's clear that the media has no problem understanding resentment
toward a "House of Worship". As long as it's Muslim resentment toward
a non-Muslim house of worship.
The same blatant dishonesty and historical revisionism that was on
display when Muslims destroyed 26 Jewish synagogues in Gaza, was also
on display when Muslims destroyed 150 churches in Kosovo. Or the 170
Hindu temples destroyed in Kashmir in the last 20 years.
If a Koran falls into a toilet somewhere, it will be on the front page
of the New York Times. If a 100 churches or synagogues burn, look for
it somewhere on page A18, under the Grey Goose ad and just above a
story about nesting pelicans in Bangalore. Three paragraphs. No photo.
Today the same people who whitewashed, excused and even celebrated the
Muslim desecration and destruction of synagogues, churches and temples
are absolutely shocked that anyone would object to building a mosque
near Ground Zero. What kind of people would dare object to a house of
worship. I mean besides Muslims anyway. It's Un-American. And you know
what is American? Putting up a massive building dedicated to an
ideology of murder, where the ashes of its victims drifted on the cold
September wind.
That my friends is American. Not the "American" of George Washington
or Theodore Roosevelt or the firefighters and police officers who
somehow made it up a hundred stories to rescue people they had never
met. No, it's the "American" of Benedict Arnold, Norman Cousins and
the ACLU board of directors. And of course that great All-Time
Champion of Americanism, Barack Hussein Obama. Barry, who thinks the
Muslim call to prayer is the prettiest sound on earth. And the
Constitution is a dim buzz in his ear.
Just the Facts, Imam. Here 3,000 Americans were murdered. For working
in offices or visiting them. For being members of the NYPD or the PAPD
or the FDNY. For putting on a uniform or a suit. For living their
lives. And then the walls and floors and furniture around them burned.
The papers in their hands burned. Their bodies burned. The ashes
drifted down narrow streets. Streets where George Washington and his
men once passed to visit Fraunces Tavern and toward Broadway where the
Iranian hostages rode back in a ticker tape parade on their return.
Now the money that nourished their killers, will help erect a mosque.
A temple of death by the ashes of the dead. And the media is outraged
that we won't allow it. That we won't stand for it. The same media
that stood and grinned while Muslims burned synagogues, churches and
temples. That tells us that the Muslim terrorists who try to kill us
are not really Muslims. Just going through a midlife crisis, picked up
some PTSD from some bad coffee or was just having a bad day. Because
we are not equal. On their farm, some animals are more equal than
others. Some have the right to kill, others only have the right to be
killed. Some have the right to build houses of worship, others have
the right to build and to burn what others labor to build. Some have
the right to be offensive, others only the right to be silent.
The dead of 9/11 are silent now. Or rather they have been silenced. As
countless millions have before them were silenced. With flame and
sword. In mass graves and at spearpoint. Tortured and mutilated. Torn
apart with bombs. The dead cannot speak out against their murderers,
but we can. The dead cannot protest, but we can. It is our duty to
stand up and speak out. This is our place. Our land and our city.
These are the streets where they tried to kill us. These are the
streets where they will try again. To speak out is to defy those who
would kill us and claim our cities as their own. Who would build
monuments to their own victory over the ashes of our dead.
First they bomb. Now they occupy. We have lived through the bombing.
And now we rise to defy the occupation.
=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
http://www.womeningreen.org (http://www.womeningreen.org)
-
That's about something that's happening in Amsterdam, not here.
If we don't stand up as a nation and demand the PC lies and distortion stop, it is just a matter of time Anne, before that is us.
:tup:
-
In case you both missed the second part of my first comment on the article......no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
-
In case you both missed the second part of my first comment on the article......no. I think the hate crime laws are wrong period.
I noticed -
Just providing more supportive input ;-)
-
Islam is not the only murderous religion;
Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (New International Version)
Driving Out the Nations
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
-
Islam is not the only murderous religion;
Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (New International Version)
Driving Out the Nations
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
I can almost guarantee that the excuse will be that that was from the Old Testament and Jesus corrected it with the New Testament. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told numerous times when discussing this with other people.
That's why I maintain that ALL religions are dangerous. They were developed for a couple of reasons....to explain the scary unexplainable and to control the peasants.
Religion is the opiate of the masses
-
In today's world, Islam is much worse.. \ :poison:
-
Islam is just the boogeyman of the current generation. When we were kids, Anne and Frod, it was the Russians. Seems like each generation of americans needs a boogeyman to keep them scared and supporting the establishment. Question: After all the hijackings back in the 70's why were cockpit doors never secured until after a disaster like 9/11 ? Its almost like somebody wanted that shit to happen. Hey frod, I have looked at the Pearl harbor thing closely as well. No question FDR knew an attack of some sort was coming. He had ensured it with his oil and metal embargo on the japs. Can't say that he knew specifically that they would hit hawaii, most figured they would hit us in the Phillipines. But the point is that FDR was willing to sacrifice alot of American lives to pull us into WW2. This was his agenda and he pursued it ruthlessly.
Seems like Bush did similar shit.
-
What I think it boils down to is that war is profitable, for the government and their buddies like Halliburton.
-
I don't think Muslims in all the attacks and people they killed have come anywhere near the murders committed by Catholicism or Christianity. They've got a long ways to go to catch up.
-
Agreed
-
@ Buzz & Frod...so should we go back to the days of internment camps?
-
The hysteria and rage directed at americans of japanese descent after pearl harbor was incredible. Locked into internment camps and treated like dogs even after many of them volunteerd to join our army and die for this country. The Nissei(Japanese-American) brigades went over and served with distinction in the Italian campaign. Gave their lives for the same nation that was locking up their relatives in camps. We should all learn a lesson from this. Not all Muslims are in some grand conspiracy to destroy America. We play into the hands of extremists when we overreact to threats.
-
grand conspiracy to destroy America
Damn, cuz I was secretly hoping for something like this. ::evil::
-
@ Buzz & Frod...so should we go back to the days of internment camps?
Nah, but I like j.o.m.'s suggestions... :poison: :nods: :suicide: ::unhappy:: ::poke::
-
Islam is just the boogeyman of the current generation. When we were kids, Anne and Frod, it was the Russians. Seems like each generation of americans needs a boogeyman to keep them scared and supporting the establishment. Question: After all the hijackings back in the 70's why were cockpit doors never secured until after a disaster like 9/11 ? Its almost like somebody wanted that shit to happen. Hey frod, I have looked at the Pearl harbor thing closely as well. No question FDR knew an attack of some sort was coming. He had ensured it with his oil and metal embargo on the japs. Can't say that he knew specifically that they would hit hawaii, most figured they would hit us in the Phillipines. But the point is that FDR was willing to sacrifice alot of American lives to pull us into WW2. This was his agenda and he pursued it ruthlessly.
Seems like Bush did similar shit.
War was inevitable, I don't think it would have mattered if FDR or any other president was in office. Circumstances as they were; Japan, Italy and Germany moving in the direction they were moving and Russa just standing by waiting. No, in my opinion FDR waited way to long.
BTW, Congress would not let him move.
-
Islam is just the boogeyman of the current generation. When we were kids, Anne and Frod, it was the Russians. Seems like each generation of americans needs a boogeyman to keep them scared and supporting the establishment. Question: After all the hijackings back in the 70's why were cockpit doors never secured until after a disaster like 9/11 ? Its almost like somebody wanted that shit to happen. Hey frod, I have looked at the Pearl harbor thing closely as well. No question FDR knew an attack of some sort was coming. He had ensured it with his oil and metal embargo on the japs. Can't say that he knew specifically that they would hit hawaii, most figured they would hit us in the Phillipines. But the point is that FDR was willing to sacrifice alot of American lives to pull us into WW2. This was his agenda and he pursued it ruthlessly.
Seems like Bush did similar shit.
War was inevitable, I don't think it would have mattered if FDR or any other president was in office. Circumstances as they were; Japan, Italy and Germany moving in the direction they were moving and Russa just standing by waiting. No, in my opinion FDR waited way to long.
BTW, Congress would not let him move.
I did not agree with going to war with Iraq. We definitely could have waited for help and more guidance.
Islam is not the bogeyman, just people who just so happened to be Islamic who kill people for reasons so idiotic as not believing their fanaticism.
-
Yes Congress and the majority of American people were very much against getting involved in WW2. American involvement was by no means "inevitable" as posted earlier. The jap surprise attack on Pearl harbor changed all of that overnight. Americans got relly really pissed off and rightfuly wanted some payback. It still would have been difficult for FDR to get a declaration of war against Germany though. Hitler took care of that by declaring war on us a few days later anyway.
I agree with heretic that the Iraq thing was fucked up. I really despise BUSH for that bungled BS.
-
Islam is not the only murderous religion;
Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (New International Version)
Driving Out the Nations
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
I can almost guarantee that the excuse will be that that was from the Old Testament and Jesus corrected it with the New Testament. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told numerous times when discussing this with other people.
That's why I maintain that ALL religions are dangerous. They were developed for a couple of reasons....to explain the scary unexplainable and to control the peasants.
Religion is the opiate of the masses
Religion is a tough thing to discuss. The quote... 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', doesn't really tell the tale.
You don't slam planes into buildings for an opiate.
-
Islam is not the only murderous religion;
Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (New International Version)
Driving Out the Nations
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
I can almost guarantee that the excuse will be that that was from the Old Testament and Jesus corrected it with the New Testament. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told numerous times when discussing this with other people.
That's why I maintain that ALL religions are dangerous. They were developed for a couple of reasons....to explain the scary unexplainable and to control the peasants.
Religion is the opiate of the masses
Religion is a tough thing to discuss. The quote... 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', doesn't really tell the tale.
You don't slam planes into buildings for an opiate.
Religion is a tough discussion to have on a Sunday morning at your local church, never mind broadening the topic into geopolitics into the mideast. Good luck!
-
I can almost guarantee that the excuse will be that that was from the Old Testament and Jesus corrected it with the New Testament. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told numerous times when discussing this with other people.
I would not say Jesus came to fulfill the law in this case, as this is not part of the Liviticule law. This was a pronouncement for this singular event - coming into the land God had proclaimed for His people. Why the current inhabitants had to be destroyed I can not say. I don't know. I trust that God, being God, did know, and had very good reasons. I can make guesses and put forward theories, but that is all it would be - my guess.
There is an important difference between these passages and the Quran. As mentioned, this was a singular event - not a command for all time, all places and all people who aren't Hebrew. There is nothing in all of the Biblical text that commands others accept the Jewish (or Christian) faith or be killed. God's law was for His people and only His people. They were not expected to force others to accept it and comply and this was never done. When Christianity has done so, it has been greatly in error and acted in direct opposition to what Jesus and the apostles taught. The same is simply not true of Islam or the Quran. When they set out to slaughter anyone who isn't a Muslim they are obeying their god and prophet.
Anne Bonney wrote:@ Buzz & Frod...so should we go back to the days of internment camps?
I think I'd have to say no. . . But why do you ask??
-
Islam is not the only murderous religion;
Deuteronomy 7:1-6 (New International Version)
Driving Out the Nations
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
I can almost guarantee that the excuse will be that that was from the Old Testament and Jesus corrected it with the New Testament. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been told numerous times when discussing this with other people.
That's why I maintain that ALL religions are dangerous. They were developed for a couple of reasons....to explain the scary unexplainable and to control the peasants.
Religion is the opiate of the masses
Religion is a tough thing to discuss. The quote... 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', doesn't really tell the tale.
You don't slam planes into buildings for an opiate.
Religion is a tough discussion to have on a Sunday morning at your local church, never mind broadening the topic into geopolitics into the mideast. Good luck!
Especially when Christians are as trained as Leftists...
Belive me you don't even know what a Christian is... yet.
Wait till enough Muslims are here...
-
The hysteria and rage directed at americans of japanese descent after pearl harbor was incredible. Locked into internment camps and treated like dogs even after many of them volunteerd to join our army and die for this country. The Nissei(Japanese-American) brigades went over and served with distinction in the Italian campaign. Gave their lives for the same nation that was locking up their relatives in camps. We should all learn a lesson from this. Not all Muslims are in some grand conspiracy to destroy America. We play into the hands of extremists when we overreact to threats.
:nods:
-
Religion is a tough thing to discuss. The quote... 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', doesn't really tell the tale.
I think it does very well. It keeps the peasants from revolting for fear of going to hell if they dare question or defy what their religious leaders are telling them to do. It also acts as a comfort for the normal human fears of things not understood and/or death.
You don't slam planes into buildings for an opiate.
Yes, they did. They did it for the 72 virgins and to be seen as martyrs for "the cause".
-
The hysteria and rage directed at americans of japanese descent after pearl harbor was incredible. Locked into internment camps and treated like dogs even after many of them volunteerd to join our army and die for this country. The Nissei(Japanese-American) brigades went over and served with distinction in the Italian campaign. Gave their lives for the same nation that was locking up their relatives in camps. We should all learn a lesson from this. Not all Muslims are in some grand conspiracy to destroy America. We play into the hands of extremists when we overreact to threats.
:nods:
Right, and agreed, but this really has not much to do with the topic, other than saying "See? This is what happens when you generalize and unfairly judge a mass of people because of their race, religion or whatever."
The original post talks about how Christians were told to get the hell off the street, or else. Talk about unfair judgment. Maybe we should set up some internment for Christians, eh Anne? It would "get America back" for all of the evil it's done over the years.