The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, February 6, 2017 02:51
VIEWED: 11703
PAGE 1 of 1
A strange thing happened to me today when I was driving past the Federal Building in Los Angeles. There were a crowd of people assembled there with signs which said that Israel is an aggressive force in the Middle East and that Iran is being picked on. As I stopped at a red light I heard a man with a mega phone lead the protesters in a chant charging Obama with genocide. I saw many young people and several Muslim women with their heads covered. It was an anti-war demonstration that probably a year ago I would have supported. But although I am not in favor of military action, I know that Iran is not another Iraq, and that in fact there is more going on here than the overly-simplified picture that the protestors were painting, as cars drove by honking in support. As the light turned green another sign caught my eye – a picture of the Twin Towers burning which read “911 Was an Inside Job”. As I looked at a sea of Palestinian flags and college kids banging on drums I felt a certain frustration – frustration based on a series of events that have changed my world view.
In the Summer of 2010, having recently escaped Hollywood, CA to take a much needed break from my profession as a film maker, I was driving in my car listening to a story on NPR. It seems the people in my new home of Murfreesboro, TN were up in arms over the proposed construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque, to be built in their small town in the middle of the American Bible Belt.
I listened carefully, to the sound bytes, of those who had shown up to a town hall meeting to voice their opposition and, as someone who was rather new to the South, I was surprised by what I was hearing. “America is a Christian nation and there is only one God and his name is not Allah and his son is Jesus Christ” and “America is a Christian Nation” and “These Muslims do not share my values and I don’t want them in my backyard”. Growing up in Southern California, I had never heard anything like this before in my life. And I started to follow the story with great interest.
On the outer edge of town, off a small country road, there was a large parcel of land, right next door to a Baptist church, with a big sign that read, “Future Home of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro”. Over the past 6 months that sign had been defaced twice. Once it was broken in half and another time the words “Not Welcome” were spray painted over it.
Rutherford County, which includes Murfreesboro, only has a little over 100,000 residents and yet the area boasts nearly 200 Christian churches. Having not been much of a fan of Islam or Christianity or religion in general (and that’s putting it mildly) I saw this as something of a David vs. Goliath story – with fanatical Evangelicals bullying a peaceful Muslim population, which had been in the community for over 30 years without there ever being any trouble. And, after learning that in July there was to be a big parade down Main Street to the town square, protesting the construction of this new mosque, I decided someone really needed to make a documentary about this. And even though I had gone to Murfreesboro to escape the film world for a while, it seemed pretty clear that if I did not document this in a movie, no one else would. I wanted to show the world what I was seeing. So I put together a small film crew and began production on a documentary I would title, “Not Welcome”.
I had never seen more American flags assembled together in one place than I had on that hot July morning as the anti-mosque crowd gathered at the base camp to prepare for the parade. Many of the marchers showed up wearing red, white and blue. I had 4 cameras covering the event with one crew embedded with the Liberal activists who were going to counter-demonstrate and the rest of the cameras with me, embedded with those who were to march against the mosque. I conducted several interviews in the school parking lot where locals and those who had driven for hours gathered, prepared to march against what they perceived to be not only a threat to th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what was the 'high price' this author paid? Not being able to write articles for the Daily Kos anymore? Losing some of his facebook friends?
What a drama queen.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
So what was the 'high price' this author paid? Not being able to write articles for the Daily Kos anymore? Losing some of his facebook friends?
What a drama queen.
It's not personal. It's just war.
yeah. a drama queen.
If that's all you got out of reading this, then you're missing the point.
The writer goes into thoughtful detail of how he started on one side of the issue, and the more he looked into it, came to see something else.
Pity you can't evolve in like manner.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's a classic example of not being able to separate issues. His looking deeper was actually getting more off topic from the story he was trying to tell. The Muslims here in America, as he observed and which other people he talked to and which he repeated in his article, really aren't any kind of worry, and the treatment they get is not justifiable.
The reason his backers wanted to pull their money was not because they didn't want him to tell the truth, but because he was getting off on a tangent about the middle east, putting the production into development limbo, and wasting their money.
If he wanted to, he could have produced his documentary then gone and produced another documentary about the truth in the middle east, and then we would have gotten two documentaries, not none. But apparently he has ADHD and lacks focus, and made it into a big deal like something scary happened to him to change his mind and that his viewpoint was being silenced.
Whatever man. If you think your viewpoint is being silenced, go join one of those anti-Mosque protest crowds already.
Also, this post made me have a nice long email conversation with my Muslim friend who went to Japan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What Byte said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's curious at the lengths to which you go to ignore the point being made, but as you say...what ever, man.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
yeah. a drama queen.
If that's all you got out of reading this, then you're missing the point.
I was just starting with the title. I did have more criticisms (I read the whole thing, it was interesting) to add when I had more time, but I think Byte has already nailed it.
Quote:
Pity you can't evolve in like manner.
I have no desire to 'evolve' into a conspiracy-mad Islamophobe ("Is Hamas Building a 53,000 Square Foot Facility in America???"). But good for you to have another in your ranks.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's curious at the lengths to which you go to ignore the point being made
Not 'ignore', but: 'refuse to conflate with a completely different point'. As Byte said, he could have made a completely separate documentary about his Islamophobic awakening. Instead he tried to treat it as two sides of the same coin... but it's two different coins.
Your corrected sentence reads:
"It's curious the lengths you go to refuse to conflate the point with a completely different one..."
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's curious at the lengths to which you go to ignore the point being made, but as you say...what ever, man.
Well how about you ARTICULATE and i mean in your words, not someone else's what you think about the piece and what you agree with, so that we can have a discussion.
I understand where this man is coming from, but frankly I feel pretty much the same about all religions. There may be peace, love and smurfs on the surface, but underneath are the ancient and viscous views on life and humanity, where punishments are harsh and tolerance for others is low. I recently read an article on the Salvation Army where they admitted that gays deserved death because it said so in the Bible.
In many religious texts there is what I consider to be the ugliness of intolerance and tolerance of viscousness. But I know plenty of people of different religions who choose to ignore those aspects of ancient texts and focus on community, spirituality and the more compassionate words that have been written. It makes me feel like something a bit screwy is going on, but live and let live, I say.
if people want to practice their religion where and whenever, then they can do so, as long as they do so peaceable and with respect for others who do not hold their views. If they step over those lines, I condemn them, regardless of the name of the faith.
The issue for me is who was stepping over that line in that town. Who do you think?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Magons, if that article about the Salvation Army you mentioned is online, would you mind posting up the link? I'd love to show it to my friends who get all indignant when I refuse to give the SA money when they're out collecting money during the Christmas season.
Socialist and unashamed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rappy, son, before you ever even knew Islam existed I was against funding the mujahideen... no matter that they "said" they were anti-Communist.
Saudi Arabia, our best buddy in the ME, has been funding radical Islamic madrassas for decades. Hell, I remember reading about it when I was a teenager (Horn of Africa) and that was a long time ago! And Pakistan (our secret mideast lover) has been funding the Taliban for about as long. You might also recall I was against invading Iraq... one of the sole bastions of secularism in the ME. Likewise, not real crazy about toppling Qaddafi either, another secular nation. The reality is that our State Department really doesn't mind dealing with religious nutcase regimes, as long as they promise to accept US dollars and IMF loans and sell us cheap oil. In fact, they prefer dealing with ANY corrupt regime, and most religious regimes areas corrupt as they come.
Deal with it. Or go argue with our gubmint about funding our enemies with our tax dollars so that ExxonMobil can get a bigger profit. That is the reality of the day.
You may as well title your thread "The High Cost of Oil" and be done with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Cuda77:
Hey Magons, if that article about the Salvation Army you mentioned is online, would you mind posting up the link? I'd love to show it to my friends who get all indignant when I refuse to give the SA money when they're out collecting money during the Christmas season.
Socialist and unashamed.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/06/26448/
The organisation has since apologised.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Rappy, son, before you ever even knew Islam existed I was against funding the mujahideen... no matter that they "said" they were anti-Communist.
Saudi Arabia, our best buddy in the ME, has been funding radical Islamic madrassas for decades. Hell, I remember reading about it when I was a teenager (Horn of Africa) and that was a long time ago! And Pakistan (our secret mideast lover) has been funding the Taliban for about as long. You might also recall I was against invading Iraq... one of the sole bastions of secularism in the ME. Likewise, not real crazy about toppling Qaddafi either, another secular nation. The reality is that our State Department really doesn't mind dealing with religious nutcase regimes, as long as they promise to accept US dollars and IMF loans and sell us cheap oil. In fact, they prefer dealing with ANY corrupt regime, and most religious regimes areas corrupt as they come.
Deal with it. Or go argue with our gubmint about funding our enemies with our tax dollars so that ExxonMobil can get a bigger profit. That is the reality of the day.
You may as well title your thread "The High Cost of Oil" and be done with it.
^ what signy says
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I understand where this man is coming from, but frankly I feel pretty much the same about all religions...
Not "all religions" have the recent track record of violence as radical Islam, and on a global scale.
And to be honest, it's not even close. Sorry, but when I hear folks come back with the, " ALL RELIGIONS are like this, blah blah blah..." rant, I tune out. All I hear is the Left's unyielding desire to try to make EVERYONE , everything, 'equal', no matter what. Not only equality of outcomes, but also equality of blame, for any conflict. This is a major flaw in the thought process of how some think.
Yes, to some extent, they are, but only radical Islam , as it's being widely practiced today, teaches that non believers must be turned, taxed, or killed.
Also...
Quote:
The reality is that our State Department really doesn't mind dealing with religious nutcase regimes, as long as they promise to accept US dollars and IMF loans and sell us cheap oil. In fact, they prefer dealing with ANY corrupt regime, and most religious regimes areas corrupt as they come.
It doesn't seem who matter who the President is, the State Dept has always baffled me, in how it views the world. They're like their own little govt, going about things in a way which seems counter to both what the Left or Right wants. Even when a new Secretary is put in place, the body of the agency seems to just go along, about its business, what ever the hell that is. Seldom, it seems to me, that the State Dept ever has the best interest of the United States in mind with regards to how its policies are developed.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yes, to some extent, they are, but only radical Islam , as it's being widely practiced today, teaches that non believers must be turned, taxed, or killed.
Thing is, it's not "only" Islam. You know this, yet as you say, you like to "tune out" whenever the truth is mentioned.
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8583/Salvos-apologise-for-put-ga
ys-to-death-quote.htm
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not only equality of outcomes, but also equality of blame, for any conflict. This is a major flaw in the thought process of how some think.
Well YEAH. I blame everyone for everything without qualification, including myself. Whether we're bystanders, or just shortsighted, or if we actively pushed some issue to it's breaking point, we've all got a responsibility.
People are pretty easy to understand, if you push them, they push back. If you can't figure out HOW you pushed them, you're not trying hard enough. If someone is telling you that you have no fault or blame in any of the problems in the world, they're just trying to get elected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
Not only equality of outcomes, but also equality of blame, for any conflict. This is a major flaw in the thought process of how some think.
Well YEAH. I blame everyone for everything without qualification, including myself. Whether we're bystanders, or just shortsighted, or if we actively pushed some issue to it's breaking point, we've all got a responsibility.
People are pretty easy to understand, if you push them, they push back. If you can't figure out HOW you pushed them, you're not trying hard enough. If someone is telling you that you have no fault or blame in any of the problems in the world, they're just trying to get elected.
Sometimes folks aren't being pushed, but still want to blame their failures on others. They resent the success of their neighbors and falsely think their own problems stem from the other guy doing well.
It's like Saruman, in LOTR. He stirred up hatred in the men of the Wild to go to war against Rohan, not out of any real, new injustices the Rohirrim had done, but because Saruman NEEDED a bunch of angry folks to fight his battle for him. It's a common theme from history which Tolkien taps into.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"You may as well title your thread "The High Cost of Oil" and be done with it."
Ouch. Yes.
There are some other factors however, notably Israel.
The US has to follow a completely crooked path in the Middle East. On the one hand it has to stay friendly with oil-producing nations. On the other hand it has to support Israel. On the third had it has to oppose anything resembling socialism. The one way to accomplish this is to support dictators, b/c they are the only ones who can guarantee trade under favorable conditions. This support is through the sale of arms, but also through trade agreements, and diplomatic favor.
Generally the US will not tolerate, and will not allow its dictators to tolerate, anything resembling a socialist opposition. That leaves radical Islam as the only organized opposition to corruption, 'the West' and Israel's brutality. Once the dictators fall, these organizations fill the void.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They resent the success of their neighbors and falsely think their own problems stem from the other guy doing well.
While I can see your Saruman thing with the religious leaders that drive believers into these fights, I'm not really sure at all it has anything to do with them being JEALOUS of us.
That's the explanation you're going with? Really? Jealousy. Not even fanaticism or zealotry?
Okay, so why are they jealous of us infidels who are going to burn in hell?
Not even getting into the point that it's difficult to drive someone into a frenzy without the list of real or perceived injuries and grievances not having SOME kernel of truth. The men of dunland were driven to anger over a land dispute thousands of years ago - to us, this seems silly, but to people who live off the land, this can be far more serious than we can understand.
But even that is seriously simplifying a very complicated situation, where people have died on both sides and brought the conflict to a fever pitch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw an interesting video of this, where the soldier went after the small boy for waving a flag during the Jerusalem Day parade:
MOST interesting were the bloodthirsty comments written by Israelis in the publication, every single one stated either that the boy should have been killed, or that Palestinians should be exterminated, or both. I'm in the process of retrieving that link so everyone can see for themselves.
What it tells me is that radical Jews are just as violent as radical Muslims. Not that little Rappy would care, b/c, in what passes for his mind, it's only a problem when Muslims act that way.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Not "all religions" have the recent track record of violence as radical Islam, and on a global scale.
And to be honest, it's not even close. Sorry, but when I hear folks come back with the, " ALL RELIGIONS are like this, blah blah blah..." rant, I tune out. All I hear is the Left's unyielding desire to try to make EVERYONE , everything, 'equal', no matter what. Not only equality of outcomes, but also equality of blame, for any conflict. This is a major flaw in the thought process of how some think.
Yes, to some extent, they are, but only radical Islam , as it's being widely practiced today, teaches that non believers must be turned, taxed, or killed.
Also...
yes, I get that you tune out, because you constantly miss what is being said and misinterpret posts.
If you actually read my post, and saw that I agreed with signy re the funding of fundamentalist Islamic regimes and organisations, and if you have read any of my earlier posts on this topic, you might actually understand that I acknowledge and am concerned re the growth of fundamentalism in the Islamic world.
I dispute that by its nature Islam is any more violent than any other religion, there is nothing written in its texts that is worse in nature than anything written in the Bible. The issue is that the doctrine of most religions is based on ancient tribal laws which were harsh, punitive and as far as we are concerned today, backward in their attitudes towards women and gays etc. When religions tip towards fundamentalism, they focus on doctrine rather than spirituality, as far as I can see.
You will also notice that I did not condemn or condone the building of the mosque. My understanding of US laws is that freedom of speech means that you cannot prohibit people or organisations from conducting their business because others find what they say is abhorrent. Hence Westboro may continue to harrass mourners at funerals because of some odd connection they have made with war and homosexuality.
With this in mind, unless the Iman is found guilty of some sort of terrorism, then he and his followers should be allowed to worship their god, with their crazy beliefs like anyone else. Doesn't stop anyone from objecting or protesting about them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"200 comments, most calling for IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers to kill children. Congratulations, you’re a light unto the nations."
Ah yes, here is the link where an Israeli soldier chases a young boy watching a parade; soldier with murderous rage on his face and gun in hand ...
http://972mag.com/armed-border-officer-chases-10-year-old-palestinian-
boy-for-holding-flag/46412/
... the video ...
... the comments ...
Some of the comments are a bit funny, in a sad way – like the comment from Geffen Cnaani, a woman in her 20s who works for a medical care provider, who writes (my translation from the Hebrew):
Stinking leftists instead of saying thank you to the soldier who did e-x-a-c-t-l-y what he was supposed to do, you’re trying to change the story?! It’s simply a disgrace that willfully ignorant people live in our country… You should appreciate a soldier like that who acts bravely in the face of the cruelest enemy we have, may the names of all Arabs be wiped out!! And respect to the dedicated soldier..!
Yehuda Daniel, an ultra-Orthodox yeshiva student, writes (with a few spelling mistakes in the holy tongue):
In my opinion at every event there should be a group of people who break cameras. If you see a camera, break it at some point so that the leftists will stop bringing expensive cameras – and then they’ll photograph more general shots (because of the lack of technology) – every camera costs tens of thousands of shekels – I doubt that journalists will be happy if someone breaks their camera every time. :-) (Daniel’s idea received two thumbs up – LG).
Asaf Cohen, a 27 year-old who is studying to be a car mechanic, writes:
They should’ve broken his legs so he couldn’t walk anymore, and then they should’ve broken the legs of the leftists with cameras.
Raz Melamed, who seems to be in his 20s, writes:
I’m not a leftist, I also don’t agree with “burning leftists and Arabs,” but it’s funny that you curse the Arabs and say they should be killed while using [Arabic] words like ‘yalla,’ ‘kus umak,’ and ‘in’al.’
As of this writing, the last response belongs to Amitai Ben-Abba:
200 comments, most calling for IDF soldiers to kill children. Congratulations, you’re a light unto the nations.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You will also notice that I did not condemn or condone the building of the mosque. My understanding of US laws is that freedom of speech means that you cannot prohibit people or organisations from conducting their business because others find what they say is abhorrent. Hence Westboro may continue to harrass mourners at funerals because of some odd connection they have made with war and homosexuality.
You have to understand, Magons, that Rappy only operates on a simple lizard's brain. He does not understand complex issues or complex emotions. For Rappy's brain, if you are not 100% against a mosque being built, you may as well be building it yourself. If you are not 100% against Islam in all its forms, you are forcing Sharia law on an unsuspecting public.
He shares this trait with many on the right. Heck, I've been accused on this very site of defending Obama's Attorney General just because I wouldn't agree to a hasty conviction without any need for a trial! At one point, it was implied that I should kill myself if I didn't agree with that assessment; all I suggested was that maybe the accusers should, y'know, possibly maybe perhaps think about preparing to someday show a little evidence, if they had any.
Nope. Can't have that. You're with us, or your against us, and there can be no other choice.
That is the false logic that rules the world of Rappy and his lizard-brained right-wingers.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AU, the area of the south you were in is still real. Rednecks are self reliant were as the beach boys have to have things done for them.
My take on the Baptist. What I like about them is they are straight up. What I have read from them that there is no bridge to build with Islam. They are right. That was in Aug of 2001. Now 9/11 is still on. And ain't going away.
A Greek told me once where ever those minarets appear so does poverty. Just look at Cyprus. This religion is not tolerant because how they treat women. So they come to a tolerant country to use the laws against their host nation. We are 10 years from being like England. You get enough nut jobs then they want their religious laws as their court system. Just a matter of time. The South will the bastion of the Republic when civil war comes. The West Coast, Mass, and Chicago will be swallowed up by their naive ideals.
The future of the US might be the Jesus freaks saving the day with their guns and righteousness. Oh another thing Arabs are just as bigoted against blacks as everybody else.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd say there were no bridges to build be the Baptists then. Hope ALL the extreme religious nut jobs rot in their respective hells.
Hey good news for us, the number of australians who indicated 'no religion' has substantially increased to 22% according the last census.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Yes, to some extent, they are, but only radical Islam , as it's being widely practiced today, teaches that non believers must be turned, taxed, or killed.
Thing is, it's not "only" Islam. You know this, yet as you say, you like to "tune out" whenever the truth is mentioned.
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8583/Salvos-apologise-for-put-ga
ys-to-death-quote.htm
Yes, it IS only Islam. When the hell have you heard any Mullah that he's 'sorry' for stoning a woman to death?
Seriously, talk about tuning out reality...
A lone, " local spokesperson " made these comments, and then quickly apologized. He was simply parroting what the New Testament translates as saying, and yes, blindly following along, as all good religious drones do. I get that. It's very bad. But spare me the ' same same' crap, as this is light years away from the institutional murder of women and gays that goes on in Islamic countries, TODAY.
This goes right back to my comment of how the Left plays the equivocation game, where some off hand comment by one person gets placed at the same level as the overt intolerance and murder of gays, women, and the 'non-believer'.
Truly unbelievable.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Human rights abuses happen all over the world, and are not restricted to any one religion or racial group
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
On 27th of February 2002, in the Indian city of Godhra, Gujarat, a Muslim crowd attacked a train filled with Hindu activists, firing two cars, and killing 27 persons. The event triggered a violent spiral of religious revenge and four days later, 2,000 Muslims were killed, their houses, mosques and trades destroyed and hundreds of women raped and mutilated before the members of their families.
Later investigations revealed that the attacks had been planned and done with the mutual approval and collaboration of the local authorities.
Religious intolerance has been signaled in Afghanistan, Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Liberia, Nigeria, many countries of the Middle East, Congo, Russia, Uganda, China (see the Muslims of Xinjiang) and others.
Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Torture is a common practice in Brazil and the violence in prisons is common and with tragic consequences. At the end of May 2002, 20 convicted and a guardian died during a revolt in the prison of maximum security of Manaus. The imprisoned protested against the tortures and the subsequent killing of an inmate and against the overpopulation and the inhuman life conditions in the prison.
In January 2002, 27 prisoners were assassinated during a revolt in the prison of Oso Blanco (the Amazonian state of Rondonia). The victims were stabbed, shot, hung or tossed from the roof by inmates belonging to rival bands.
The more recent episodes of Abu Graib are too fresh in our minds...
These infringements have also been signaled in Angola, Argentina, US, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Peru, Congo, Dominican Republic, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Vietnam and other countries.
Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude;
slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
For 18 years, LRA (Lord Resistance Army) guerrilla from northern Uganda has been kidnapping boys to train them as soldiers and girls to turn them in sexual slaves of the commanders. In 2002, the number of children found in the power of LRA was of 20,000.
Slavery has been also signaled in Albania, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Myanmar, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Georgia, Kirghistan, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and other countries.
Article 13.(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
After the fire cease between the government of Angola and UNITA in 2001, the number of people experiencing hunger reached 2 millions. 4.5 million people were refugees. The harassment and extortion amongst refugees is common, just like rapes.
This violation is also signaled in Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Colombia, ex-Yugoslavia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Congo, Uganda ...The Darfour case of Sudan is much too famous.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
15 journalists were killed and 68 experienced violent attacks in turbid circumstances for having denounced the corruption and abuses of the Russian Army in Chechnya. The special correspondent of "Novaia Gazeta" in the Caucasian republic was "invited" in 2002 to leave the country.
Infringement of the freedom of speech and media, and killed/attacked journalists have
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing which is a struggle to comprehend is why you flood the issue with irrelevant and peripheral topics.
You're going full out of your way to not deal w/ the issue as is, and instead trying to drown out the discussion in a sea of noise.
Yeah, bad things abound on this planet. Lots of people suck. That's NOT the issue here.
And if you think blaming communists for the crimes they committed, or pointing out the true dangers of radical islam is making 'scapegoats' out of anyone, then your head is shoved so firmly into the dark, there's no point of trying to have a rational exchange w/ you, at all.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Has anyone here disputed, though, that radical Islam sucks? Because it does. Radical anything is bad.
There is no contradiction to this in asserting that not all of Islam is radical or militant. Or that other religions/ideologies, when radicalized, become dangerous and oppressive. Attacking Islam is not the answer, Attacking fanaticism is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Has anyone here disputed, though, that radical Islam sucks? Because it does. Radical anything is bad.
There is no contradiction to this in asserting that not all of Islam is radical or militant. Or that other religions/ideologies, when radicalized, become dangerous and oppressive. Attacking Islam is not the answer, Attacking fanaticism is.
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.
Either you get it, or you don't.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting tactic.
I'm pretty sure racidal christians/jews/hindus/pastafarians/whatevers have all been guilty of crimes, just not the ones you listed.
I'm also pretty sure that most of the ones you did list were policitally motivated, with radicalized religion being only an aspect, not the cause of the crime. You don't seriously allege that the children of Beslan were murdered because Islam said so, do you? Or that it was Islam that motivated the tragedy at the '72 olympics? Or that Islam and Islam only caused 9/11?
There was a political aim to most of the things you list. Take religion out and the political aim remains. Terrorists come in all faiths. The fact that such a large number of politically motivated terrorists these days are also islamists has a complex set of historical causes that are also mainly political. It's an unholy alliance between political anger and religious identity. This, too, is not really caused by Islam.
There are radical islamists in the world and they cause harm. It's a real problem. But there are also MORE peaceful muslim people in the world, which contradicts your (apparent) assertion that Islam itself is a cause of terrorism. That's a fact you seem to ignore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, it's just dumb luck that the most violent acts committed, world wide, just HAPPEN to involve Muslims ? That such things are more based in politics, and it just HAPPENS that it's Muslims involved ?
Wow.
" Terrorists come in all faiths. "
No duh. Never denied that for a moment. But by in large, THE MOST violent attacks seem to be carried out in the name of ONE particular religion.
You seem to not want to acknowledge that. For what ever reason.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Has anyone here disputed, though, that radical Islam sucks? Because it does. Radical anything is bad.
There is no contradiction to this in asserting that not all of Islam is radical or militant. Or that other religions/ideologies, when radicalized, become dangerous and oppressive. Attacking Islam is not the answer, Attacking fanaticism is.
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.
Either you get it, or you don't.
Radical Muslims didn't kill Dr. Geller in his church. There is only one and only one religion which follows that example.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, it's just dumb luck that the most violent acts committed, world wide, just HAPPEN to involve Muslims ? That such things are more based in politics, and it just HAPPENS that it's Muslims involved ?
Wow.
" Terrorists come in all faiths. "
No duh. Never denied that for a moment. But by in large, THE MOST violent attacks seem to be carried out in the name of ONE particular religion.
You seem to not want to acknowledge that. For what ever reason.
If only you could apply that same kind of logic to the global climate change issue. But for political reasons, you are unwilling to see facts.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Has anyone here disputed, though, that radical Islam sucks? Because it does. Radical anything is bad.
There is no contradiction to this in asserting that not all of Islam is radical or militant. Or that other religions/ideologies, when radicalized, become dangerous and oppressive. Attacking Islam is not the answer, Attacking fanaticism is.
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.
Either you get it, or you don't.
The other thing they have in common is that most of them are Arabic peoples as well, and them what ain't was following an Arabic religion when they done doed it, so there's definitely a good reason to kill as many Arabs as possible as well. Good thing we're fighting two wars with 'em! Yay, more drone strikes = less Arabs = more freedom! Well it's true.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm fine with the Arab world. They gave us pyramids, pi, and lots of neat stuff before the Greeks or Romans came along. Islam? Not so much a fan.
And Kwickie ? Don't much care for agenda driven or FAKED science. It's sort of a pet peeve of mine.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's odd that you refuse to apply the same criteria to the rest of your life, such as your "news" and information sources. All agenda-driven, often FAKED, yet you are utterly blind to it.
Since you've shown yourself to be so far removed from reality in every other area of life, why should one assume you know what you're talking about when it comes to climate change?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's odd that you refuse to apply the same criteria to the rest of your life, such as your "news" and information sources. All agenda-driven, often FAKED, yet you are utterly blind to it.
Since you've shown yourself to be so far removed from reality in every other area of life, why should one assume you know what you're talking about when it comes to climate change?
Your words hold no validity, no meaning, at all. I may be far from YOUR reality , but not from actual reality. Big difference
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Has anyone here disputed, though, that radical Islam sucks? Because it does. Radical anything is bad.
There is no contradiction to this in asserting that not all of Islam is radical or militant. Or that other religions/ideologies, when radicalized, become dangerous and oppressive. Attacking Islam is not the answer, Attacking fanaticism is.
Yeah, that is the point I have been trying unsuccessfully to make. Rappy loves to dump on all Muslims - that is 23% of the world's population with their mixed cultures, ethnicities and denominations as being ALL fanatical terrorists.
Yes, much of the Muslim world holds different values to the USA. Yes, much of the rest of the world holds different values to the USA. Some Muslim values I dislike, some US values I dislike.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The only thing which is a struggle to comprehend is why you flood the issue with irrelevant and peripheral topics.
You're going full out of your way to not deal w/ the issue as is, and instead trying to drown out the discussion in a sea of noise.
Yeah, bad things abound on this planet. Lots of people suck. That's NOT the issue here.
And if you think blaming communists for the crimes they committed, or pointing out the true dangers of radical islam is making 'scapegoats' out of anyone, then your head is shoved so firmly into the dark, there's no point of trying to have a rational exchange w/ you, at all.
So you didn't read the second link. I thought as much.
It is the point that lots of people suck and you continue to focus on one group. That is the scapegoating. No-one condones the actions of terrorists. No-one here does anything other than condemn the practises of radical Islam, but only you are fool enough to be unable to distinguish 'radical' from Islam.
Never had a rational exchange with you yet, Rappy. But anytime you want to step up, feel free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM: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!
Rappy has never shown any ability to learn. Today is like every other in that regard.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM: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.
Collateral damage, he calls it. Rappy says it's fine to kill innocent folks if you were trying to get bad guys. No big deal at all.
So by that rationale, Wall Street is now classified as a target-rich environment, much the same way Fort Hood was deemed (and in fact WAS) a legitimate target by al-Qaeda. A few folks get caught in the crossfire, but you were targeting the bad ones, so it's all good. That is Rappy's official position on the matter, according to his own words.
Quote:
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!
Yes to poking the monkey, and of course he'll run away. It's the only thing he's known for around here!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY, you're a smart guy. You can take any single fact and any kind of logic, and twist it into a pretzel to match your concerns. In this case, specifically about 'radical Islam'. I agree with you that radical Islam is "a" problem... maybe not the biggest one in my book, but certainly on my list.
But let's assume that you're correct: that radical Islam is a MAJOR problem.
Now, if you were intent on solving this problem, how do you suppose we should BEST go about it?
Well, we could certainly attempt to bomb, shoot, or missile all leaders and any followers who were close enough to be killed. But imagine it from the other side (if possible): Would you really abandon your Tea Party beliefs if Limbaugh were to be killed, especially if he was killed by Obama?
Or would your anger and resolution simply grow white-hot? After all, your true spiritual leader (Ayn Rand) is dead, and that hasn't stopped YOU from following her precepts, has it? And killing the tactical leaders of today would only make you burn hotter, would it not?
Your chosen strategy not only is doomed to fail, it is doomed to make things WORSE. So if your strategy is a for-sure failure, why not change it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only a small percentage of Muslims are radical; of those, only a tinier percent would be willing to be ACTIVELY radical; of those, an even tinier percentage of those would have the ability or connections to DO anything about it. But that tiny percent is enough for Raptor to obsess about constantly.
When you think of all the things in this world which can kill you, I'm afraid Islamist terrorism is pretty low on MY list. Obviously it's at the top of Raptor's list, so let him enjoy his paranoia. No logic will change it anway, so why bother? It apparently gives him a purpose in life (along with regurgitating everything negative he can find about Dems, Obama, "lefties", and anyone/anything else that doesn't swallow the propaganda he does).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to agree with Raptor that, currently, radical Islam seems to be responsable for more "terroristic" acts than other things. Not to say that its always been that way, just that it is that way right now. So I think its a problem. I don't know how to fix the problem though because you can't stop people from believing things. And you can't stop all splinter groups in other countries from doing things there. But I do think its something to pay attention to and not pretend it isn't happening. That being said there are lots of other things going wrong that we need to pay attention to as well, but I don't think we should ignore this one. since its kind of obvious, to me at least.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Be careful what you are agreeing with, Rione. Rap isn't talking about 'radical Islam' - note the title of the thread. he abhors Islam the religion, per se. He sees it as a violent, wicked religion, and believes EVERY Muslim has the heart of a violent terrorist. That's why I argue with him.
If you were to discuss the rise in fanaticism in the Muslim world, I'm likely to agree. I'm not sure that it is as big a concern for my life as many would make out, but that doesn't mean it doesn't concern me.
But do I stop mosques being built in my neighborhood? No more than I would protest the construction of a church or synagogue,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
Are you saying one should not compare tactics, even to point out differences? Did anyone here specifically say that one was exactly the same as the other?
I know you like to believe whatever you're told by the right-wing media, but "pin point accuracy" does not exist. That "pin point accuracy" has resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.
If you think that there's only one side that's piling up civilian casualties far outstripping the military aims of the war, you're right. The U.S. is definitely doing that.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.
And there you have it, comparing apples to oranges.
We weren't TRYING to kill civilians, the Muslim terrorists were.
We didn't declare war on the 'non believers' of Christ. Religion had zero to do w/ our attacking of Iraq.
Where do you think said Jihadists would set off a dirty bomb, given a choice, between a naval yard, where any random US warship may be docked, or in Times Square ?
Game, set, match.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
I do know about history, and the only posts that embarrass me are yours so far. You are the one who is comparing modern shock and awe tactics with blitzkreig tactics used both both sides in WW2. I posted a wikipedia article that compared the effect of the shock of such tactics as being akin to Hiroshima et al, and guess who made that analogy, not me, dummy, but the authors who invented the doctine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
One side's military tactic is another ones terrorist act. If you have the military technology and might, you employ similar tactics as the US does in armed conflict, if you do not, you might use guerrilla or terror tactics. That also happened in WW2 and we call them resistence fighters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good points Magon's, if someone wants to build a new mosque in my city I wouldn't be complaining or protesting it, its their right to worship as they see fit.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't look now, but the " religion of peace " is at it again.
Quote:
Posted: Today 2:19 PM
Timbuktu's ancient monuments pillaged by Islamists
An Islamic faction seized control of the city in the West African nation of Mali and is razing Sufi tombs and other cultural sites.
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI
Beyond the tombs, the manuscripts are considered to be the real treasure of the region ... (July 3, 2012, by
DAKAR, Senegal — Muslim extremists continued destroying the heritage of the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu on Monday, razing tombs and attacking the gate of a 600-year-old mosque, despite growing international outcry.
The International Criminal Court has described the destruction of the city's patrimony as a possible war crime, while UNESCO's committee on world heritage was holding a special session this week to address the pillaging of the site, one of the few cultural sites in sub-Saharan Africa that is listed by the agency.
The Islamic faction, known as Ansar Dine, or "Protectors of the Faith," seized control of Timbuktu last week after ousting the Tuareg rebel faction that had invaded northern Mali alongside Ansar Dine's soldiers three months ago. Over the weekend, fighters screaming "Allah Akbar" descended on the cemeteries holding the remains of Timbuktu's Sufi saints, and systematically began destroying the six most famous tombs.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2018589317_webmali03.html
Perhaps they should refer to themselves as the Religion of PIECES, because that's what they'll turn all of mankind's relics into , if given half a chance.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.
And there you have it, comparing apples to oranges.
We weren't TRYING to kill civilians, the Muslim terrorists were.
That should come as great comfort to the families of the dead.
Quote:
We didn't declare war on the 'non believers' of Christ. Religion had zero to do w/ our attacking of Iraq.
Prove it.
Quote:
Where do you think said Jihadists would set off a dirty bomb, given a choice, between a naval yard, where any random US warship may be docked, or in Times Square ?
So you DO agree that in wars past, the U.S. has behaved as terrorists, intentionally targeting known civilian populations (Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, etc.) rather than concentrating solely on military installations!
Game, set, and match indeed - you've just proved once again the very point you've been so vehemently arguing against.
You really should stop shooting yourself in the foot. Or at least stop reloading.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The burden of proof is upon you to show we HAVE attacked Iraq or anywhere in the middle East in the name of Christ, not for others to validate YOUR delusion.
And, if anything, I buried YOUR notion that we're engaging in terrorism NOW, by contrasting it to what a Democratic President did, back in WW2. You know, the same guy who rounded up US citizens and put them in camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry ?
Game, set, match, tournament. Hand me the big ass gold plated platter now, and let me nod to the Queen. 
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Good points Magon's, if someone wants to build a new mosque in my city I wouldn't be complaining or protesting it, its their right to worship as they see fit.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
see above for rappy's post, how he desparages all of Islam because of the acts of some followers. Never mind, once again, that Islam makes up a fifth of the world's population, and spreads over many cultures in the world.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can't just lump them all together
Muslim children in South Africa, a minority people in that country.
Two political candidates in Australia
Flood victims queue for food in India
Huiger people, persecuted minority in China
Afghanistan women wearing Burkha
Benazir Bhutto, assasinated president of Pakistan
Uzbekistan woman
Tunisian man
Kenyan man
Malaysian social activist
Young Malaysian women
http://islam44.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/10-most-famous-muslim-football-
players.html
Muslim footballers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Islam and banking.
Sharia laws require a much more ethical approach to banking than in the west. hey, what am I saying, the western banking system has no ethics!!!
From wiki
Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking: to make money for the banking institute by lending out capital. Because Islam forbids simply lending out money at interest (see riba), Islamic rules on transactions (known as Fiqh al-Muamalat) have been created to avoid this problem. The basic technique to avoid the prohibition is the sharing of profit and loss, via terms such as profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijar).
In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of loaning the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments. However, the bank's profit cannot be made explicit and therefore there are no additional penalties for late payment. In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral. The goods or land is registered to the name of the buyer from the start of the transaction. This arrangement is called Murabahah.
Divorce
An unhappy wife is complaining to the Qadi about her husband's impotence. Ottoman miniature, 18th century.
The laws governing divorce vary substantially between sects, schools, states and cultures. The following outline is general in nature.
A marriage can be terminated by the husband in the talaq process, or by the wife seeking divorce through khul'. Under faskh a marriage may be annulled or terminated by the qadi judge.
Men have the right of unilateral divorce under classical sharia. A Sunni Muslim divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her, however a Shia divorce also requires four witnesses.[107] Upon divorce, the husband must pay the wife any delayed component of the dower. If a man divorces his wife in this manner three times, he may not re-marry her unless she first marries, and is subsequently divorced from, another man. Only then, and only if the divorce from the second husband is not intended as a means to re-marry her first husband, may the first husband and the woman re-marry.[Quran 2:230]
In practice, unilateral divorce is only common in a few areas of the Islamic world. It is much more common for divorces to be accomplished by mutual consent.[107]
If the wife asks for a divorce and the husband refuses, the wife has a right, under classical sharia, to divorce by khul'. Although this right is not recognized everywhere in Islam, it is becoming more common. In this scenario, the qadi judge will effect the divorce for the wife, and she may be required to return part, or all, of her dowry.[107]
Under faskh, a qadi judge can end or annul a marriage.[107] Apostasy, on the part of the husband or wife, ends a Muslim marriage in this way. Hardship or suffering on the part of the wife in a marriage may also be remedied in this way. This procedure is also used to annul a marriage in which one of the parties has a serious disability.[108]
Except in the case of a khul' divorce initiated by a woman, the divorced wife generally keeps her dowry from when she was married. A divorced woman is given child support until the age of weaning. The mother is usually granted custody of the child.[109] If the couple has divorced fewer than three times (meaning it is not a final divorce) the wife also receives spousal support for three menstrual cycles after the divorce, until it can be determined whether she is pregnant. Even in a threefold divorce, a pregnant wife will be supported during the waiting period, and the child will be supported afterwards.[110
Child custody
In a divorce, the child will stay with its mother until he or she is weaned,[111] or until the age of discernment, when the child may choose whom he or she lives with. The age of discernment is seven or eight years.[111]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The burden of proof is upon you to show we HAVE attacked Iraq or anywhere in the middle East in the name of Christ, not for others to validate YOUR delusion.
Wow. Just wow. So now, according to you, the burden of proof is on ME to prove something I didn't say, and NOT on you to back up what you DID say. Awesome.
RappyWorld™: Logic Need Not Apply.
As always, when you've got nothing at all, you throw out accusations, demand proof while refusing to provide ANY evidence at all to support your own ridiculous claims, and then run away.
Quote:
And, if anything, I buried YOUR notion that we're engaging in terrorism NOW, by contrasting it to what a Democratic President did, back in WW2. You know, the same guy who rounded up US citizens and put them in camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry ?
How, by showing how we're doing the same thing now, and how we round up U.S. citizens (or kill them) simply because they are Muslim? The only thing you "buried" was your head, in your own ass. I guess you like the taste of shit, you swallow so much of it!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had to think of this thread when I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18703171
Quote:
Kenyan Muslim groups 'to protect churches'
4 July 2012
Muslim leaders in Kenya have agreed to form self-defence groups to protect churches following a deadly attack on Sunday.
Fifteen people were killed in the raids on churches in Garissa, a town near the border with Somalia.
Kenya's border region has been tense since it sent troops into Somalia to pursue al-Shabab Islamist militants.
Adan Wachu, head of the Supreme Council of Kenyan Muslims, told the BBC the attacks were acts of terrorism.
(...)
Mr Wachu said that at a meeting the Inter-Religious Council of Kenya on Tuesday it was unanimously agreed the church attacks were acts of "terrorists and terrorism".
"Therefore we all resolved to stand together as one united front," he said.
"We decided as solidarity that the Muslim youth will provide a vigilante service to the churches not only in Garissa but in any other places that the Christians may deem fit."
He said that it was now up to the Muslim leaders in Garissa to organise out how the estimated 30 churches in the town would be protected.
"Muslims felt that because those Christians are a minority in their domain they must be protected at all cost."
Most of the people living in and around Garissa are ethnic Somalis and Muslims.
I wonder what is wrong with these muslims. Surely they need to be reminded that their primary focus is hating the infidel?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There it is in a nutshell.
One side's military tactic is another ones terrorist act. If you have the military technology and might, you employ similar tactics as the US does in armed conflict, if you do not, you might use guerrilla or terror tactics. That also happened in WW2 and we call them resistence fighters.
As to Raptor and Muslims, I think he should go work for Allen West. Never was there such a Islamophobe more in keeping with his mentality, and neither of them will ever be able to see reality. Bear in mind, again, that the insane never think THEY'RE insane.
Raptor will always, always look for anything he can find to put up and sneer "THAT for your religion of peace", despite knowing no actual truths about Islam or anything ELSE. It's his own private paranoia, I say leave him to it, it keeps him happy. RWA's are only content when there are conspiracies and things to fear that they can focus on. Why bother trying to show them reality?
Just for the amusement of others, however, yeah, Bush thought of it partly as a religious war on Islam, it kinda snuk out in his choice of wording:Quote:
First he called it a "Crusade" on 9/16/2001, a word that brings to mind the early Christian Crusades where Christian's waged war on Muslim's and other "heretics" to convert them to Christianity. Despite the "faux pas", he's been describing his wars in Religious terms ever since (suggesting it was no mistake).
Speaking before the conservative Heritage Foundation (the only place left on Earth that still thinks Bush is doing a great job) on Nov 1st, 2007, President Bush again refers to his "War on Terror" in religious terms. Naturally, Muslims can't help but interpret this as a "holy war on Islam".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, no one caring that Muslims, once again, are destroying ancient artifacts ?
Is it just because they're in AFRICA ? I mean, really...should it matter where they are? Does the caring kick in once it's something more significant, or maybe when they start building mosques on ( or near ) destroyed land marks ?
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:There it is in a nutshell.
One side's military tactic is another ones terrorist act. If you have the military technology and might, you employ similar tactics as the US does in armed conflict, if you do not, you might use guerrilla or terror tactics. That also happened in WW2 and we call them resistence fighters.
As to Raptor and Muslims, I think he should go work for Allen West. Never was there such a Islamophobe more in keeping with his mentality, and neither of them will ever be able to see reality. Bear in mind, again, that the insane never think THEY'RE insane.
Raptor will always, always look for anything he can find to put up and sneer "THAT for your religion of peace", despite knowing no actual truths about Islam or anything ELSE. It's his own private paranoia, I say leave him to it, it keeps him happy. RWA's are only content when there are conspiracies and things to fear that they can focus on. Why bother trying to show them reality?
Just for the amusement of others, however, yeah, Bush thought of it partly as a religious war on Islam, it kinda snuk out in his choice of wording:Quote:
First he called it a "Crusade" on 9/16/2001, a word that brings to mind the early Christian Crusades where Christian's waged war on Muslim's and other "heretics" to convert them to Christianity. Despite the "faux pas", he's been describing his wars in Religious terms ever since (suggesting it was no mistake).
Speaking before the conservative Heritage Foundation (the only place left on Earth that still thinks Bush is doing a great job) on Nov 1st, 2007, President Bush again refers to his "War on Terror" in religious terms. Naturally, Muslims can't help but interpret this as a "holy war on Islam".
Thanks Niki. I remember this.
Anyway, enough from me. I've had some time on my hands this week and I've wasted enough of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So, no one caring that Muslims, once again, are destroying ancient artifacts ?
Is it just because they're in AFRICA ? I mean, really...should it matter where they are? Does the caring kick in once it's something more significant, or maybe when they start building mosques on ( or near ) destroyed land marks ?
They're, incidentally, destroying muslim holy sites. Sucks for world cultural heritage but sucks even more for the muslims who hold them particularly dear. Would it be a problem if muslims (re)built mosques on or near those destroyed historic landmarks?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Express, its like Fox or the dailymail... so take it with a pinch of salt
Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took 'too many prayer breaks', claims official
THE head of the France's centre-right Union of Democrats and Independents (UDI) political party, Jean-Christophe Lagarde, has claimed a PSA Peugeot Citroen car plant had to close because it had hired too many "unproductive" Muslim employees.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/750123/peugeot-car-plant-closed-mu
slim-prayer-breaks-workers-took-too-many-claims-official
Head of France’s UDI party claims Peugeot car plant closed as Muslims took 'too many prayer breaks'
The hardline centrist, who is also deputy mayor of Drancy, a suburb northeast of Paris, said that the carmaker's Aulnay plant, which closed in 2013, had been forced to shut its doors because of "problems arising from never-ending religious demands by Muslim employees".
He said: "The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks and had become unproductive. It's the truth. A Peugeot official told me that it was one - but obviously not the only - of the reasons the plant was shut down."
The shocking claims were made in French newspaper France Info.
Related articles
'Illegal' mosque faces closure amid claims it's 'breeding' jihad
Imam says chess is WORSE than gambling and eating pork
Claims were made by Jean-Christophe Lagarde head of UDI and deputy mayor of Drancy
Mr Lagarde added that he wasn't trying to "irk" Muslims and spark a controversial debate about religion at work, but said he wanted to "end the Omerta".
The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks
Jean-Christophe Lagarde - Head of UDI party
He said: "Some Muslim employees are proselytising at work and harassing their non-Muslim co-workers.
No one should feel under pressure to convert to Islam or accommodate religious colleagues. Because religion has no place in the workplace.:
A Peugeot spokesperson, however, has denied Mr Lagarde's "inflammatory" claims and said that, at the time, the automobile behemoth had been on the brink of bankruptcy and that bosses had decided to close the Aulnay plant to "cut losses".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Express, its like Fox or the dailymail... so take it with a pinch of salt
Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took 'too many prayer breaks', claims official
THE head of the France's centre-right Union of Democrats and Independents (UDI) political party, Jean-Christophe Lagarde, has claimed a PSA Peugeot Citroen car plant had to close because it had hired too many "unproductive" Muslim employees.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/750123/peugeot-car-plant-closed-mu
slim-prayer-breaks-workers-took-too-many-claims-official
Head of France’s UDI party claims Peugeot car plant closed as Muslims took 'too many prayer breaks'
The hardline centrist, who is also deputy mayor of Drancy, a suburb northeast of Paris, said that the carmaker's Aulnay plant, which closed in 2013, had been forced to shut its doors because of "problems arising from never-ending religious demands by Muslim employees".
He said: "The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks and had become unproductive. It's the truth. A Peugeot official told me that it was one - but obviously not the only - of the reasons the plant was shut down."
The shocking claims were made in French newspaper France Info.
Related articles
'Illegal' mosque faces closure amid claims it's 'breeding' jihad
Imam says chess is WORSE than gambling and eating pork
Claims were made by Jean-Christophe Lagarde head of UDI and deputy mayor of Drancy
Mr Lagarde added that he wasn't trying to "irk" Muslims and spark a controversial debate about religion at work, but said he wanted to "end the Omerta".
The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks
Jean-Christophe Lagarde - Head of UDI party
He said: "Some Muslim employees are proselytising at work and harassing their non-Muslim co-workers.
No one should feel under pressure to convert to Islam or accommodate religious colleagues. Because religion has no place in the workplace.:
A Peugeot spokesperson, however, has denied Mr Lagarde's "inflammatory" claims and said that, at the time, the automobile behemoth had been on the brink of bankruptcy and that bosses had decided to close the Aulnay plant to "cut losses".
That's just crazy talk.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME