The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, February 6, 2017 02:51
VIEWED: 11703
PAGE 5 of 8
Quote:
I'm fine with the Arab world.
Not here:
As it was mentioned - Muslims demand you know, Christians pray you will.
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=50740&p=1
Because what Tebow does doesn't represent flying planes into tall buildings, in the name of his lord and savior. Or rape school children, shoot them in the back, and then blow them up. Or saw the heads off innocent men, women and children. Or give children little plastic 'keys to Paradise', and then force them to scamper across a mine field. Or stone to death women who get raped. Or hang gays for being 'gay'.
the religion that perpetuates nearly every terrorist act on the globe
here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=49857
So spare me the faux indignation of what to call heartless murderers, who pray to Allah, hold up the qu'ran, want to instill Sharia Law, and love death more than we love life.
here
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=45635&mid=
807749
It doesn't take a team of precogs to figure out the cast of bad folks over there. Drones taking out nests of al-Qaeda head men saves 1000's of lives and billions of dollars.
But when it comes down to it... a few civillians die, along w/ a bunch of bad guys
I got no problem with it, in the least.
I had literally thousands of hits on my search. But I have things too do. I think we all remember how unconcerned you were with the bombing deaths of tens of thousands of innocent brown skinned Middle Easterners at the hands of the US (who may or may not be Arabs per se), or with similar 'collateral damage' deaths from drones in the ME and elsewhere, how enthusiastically you supported torture of innocent brown-skinned people as a sacrifice to allay your god of fear, how often you castigated 'Muslims' and 'Islam' as the root of the worst evil in the world. And NOW you claim to have always been 'fine' with the Arab world.
Oh, BTW, yes indeedy, this gets added to your RapFacts™!
Oh, and I'm eagerly awaiting reading you claiming that you NEVER posted such things. The irony will be hysterically funny! So please, post away!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I never posted such things, as you seem to think that Arabs = Muslims, exclusively and with out any distinction, what so ever.
They don't.
You're wrong.
I win. Again.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=52311&p=1#90260
9
"I never posted such things ..."
WOW! The MOTHERLOAD! THANKS!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Radical Muslims didn't kill 100,000+ civilians in a "shock and awe*" campaign in a totally baseless "war of choice". If you're interested in the truth... and I know you're not... and if you are simply balancing the scales of dead on one side versus dead on the other, we are by far the worst terrorists in the world, bar none.
Radical Buddhists didn't fly any jet planes into sky scrapers.
Radical Baptists didn't kill 350 school children in Beslan, Russia.
Radical Jews didn't go on a shooting spree in Mumbai
Radical Scientiologists didn't blow up tourists in Bali.
Radical Wiccans didn't murder Theo Van Gogh
Radical Methodist didn't blow up 1500 year old statues of Buddha.
Radical Hindus didn't murder Olympic athletes in the '72 Summer games.
I could go on all day, but I doubt the message could be made any more clear. There is one and only one religion which follows the word " radical " in each and every one of those examples.
*"Shock and awe" by any definition is an act of terror, since it uses terror (shock and awe, fear and dread) in the form of relentless killing of civilians to attain a political goal (installing a regime more to our liking).
-------------
I had a funny moment when I went back East to help out with my aging mom. My uncle- a retired police sergeant (BTW his son, my cousin, is a high mucky-muck in ICE, so that part of the family is definitely well-establish in Homeland Security) - gave me a hug and asked me how I was doing and how airport security was. So I said, well, OK, except they're using back-scatter radiation now, and it's not like I need the extra radiation. And he laughed and said "Airport security, it's out of control" and as part of the same hug and ironic laugh, added "Al Qaida, they're gonna win". I have to say, I was shocked. Because even he, a small-town cop in bumfuck NY, realizes that our reaction to Al Qaida ... the money we have spent in feckless wars and "Homeland Security" and the rights we have given up in order to be ass-probed and monitored like never before ... has done more damage than anything Al Qaida could have hoped to inflict by themselves.
--------------
Oh, BTW KIKI, congrats on getting rappy to (once again) make a total shit-stain of himself. My god, you'd think the guy would learn!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=52311&p=1#90260
9
"I never posted such things ..."
WOW! The MOTHERLOAD! THANKS!
The premise of your position is 100 % false.
And the wars with Iraq had nothing to do with Christianity, so the 'shock and awe' nonsense is a complete non sequitur. Sorry Ackmed, you lose.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you do admit that 'shock and awe' is a terrorist tactic?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's a country that backs up your views... how do you like that bedfellow?
Quote:
China has been accused by two US-based human rights groups of conducting a "crushing campaign of religious repression" against Muslim Uighurs.
It is being done in the name of anti-separatism and counter-terrorism, says a joint report by Human Rights Watch and Human Rights in China.
It is said to be taking place in the western Xinjiang region, where more than half the population is Uighur.
China has denied that it suppresses Islam in Xinjiang.
It says it only wants to stop the forces of separatism, terrorism and religious extremism in the region, which Uighur separatists call East Turkestan.
The report accuses China of "opportunistically using the post-11 September environment to make the outrageous claim that individuals disseminating peaceful religious and cultural messages in Xinjiang are terrorists who have simply changed tactics".
The authors of the report say it is based on previously undisclosed Communist Party and Chinese government documents, local regulations, press reports and local interviews.
The report says the systematic repression of religion in Xinjiang was continuing as "a matter of considered state policy".
Such repression ranges from vetting imams and closing mosques to executions and the detention of thousands of people every year, it claims.
"Religious regulation in Xinjiang is so pervasive that it creates a legal net that can catch just about anyone the authorities want to target," said Sharon Hom, Executive Director of Human Rights in China.
The report also reveals that almost half the detainees in Xinjiang's re-education camps are there for engaging in illegal religious activities.
Uighurs make up about eight million of the 19 million people in Xinjiang.
Many of them favour greater autonomy, and China views separatist sentiments as a threat to the state.
China can't tolerate values other than its own, either, it would seem. Thinking of migrating any time soon?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you do admit that 'shock and awe' is a terrorist tactic?
It's not directed at a civilian population, but the effects can't be overlooked BY said population. It's war. It's attacking the command and control structure of the enemy. It's not an attack on the general population.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So ONLY killing people in the name of religion counts? Therefore we shouldn't be upset if Obama were to decide to... say... drone-attack the leaders of the Tea Party? And if a whole bunch of innocent civilians get killed in the process (aside from the targets, that is) that doesn't count either because it wasn't "intended"?
And the wars with Iraq had nothing to do with Christianity, so the 'shock and awe' nonsense is a complete non sequitur.
Wow, you are an idiot. You've just voided any complaint that you might make about Obama, including so-called "death panels", because if it's not intended or done in the name of religion, clearly it's of no consequence.
Do you really intend for us to take you seriously? Clearly not; your arguments don't even pass logic 101. At this point, I just poke at you for fun, 'cause you get all exercised the spittle starts flying. I wonder if you'll run way from THIS thread TOO!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you do admit that 'shock and awe' is a terrorist tactic?
It's not directed at a civilian population, but the effects can't be overlooked BY said population. It's war. It's attacking the command and control structure of the enemy. It's not an attack on the general population.
Quote:
Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[6] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]
Using as an example a theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, the authors claimed, "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[8]
Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated, "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."[9]
You might want to revisit the meaning of 'shock and awe'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME