Hijacked Again. "The Religion of Peace" according to delusional state-run media.
From Washington Post:
'Horrific outburst of violence'
An Army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire Thursday in a crowded medical building at Fort Hood, Tex., killing at least 13 people and wounding others.
Probe of suspect's motive begins
WEB POSTINGS SPUR QUESTIONS Officials may not have heeded warning signs
By Scott Wilson, Carrie Johnson and Spencer S. Hsu
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Investigators on Friday bore down on the possible motives of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood gunman, to determine whether his actions were driven by stress related to his upcoming deployment to Afghanistan or to an Islamist political ideology.
Law enforcement officials also faced questions about whether they had missed possible warning signs. Six months ago, investigators came across Internet postings, allegedly by Hasan, that indicated sympathy for suicide bombers and empathized with the plight of Muslim civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a federal official briefed on the situation. The official, and another source, said investigators never confirmed whether Hasan was the author of the postings and did not pursue the matter.
The postings were among a handful of possible red flags that preceded Thursday's rampage, in which 13 people were killed and 38 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting on a U.S. military installation to date. Friends and acquaintances said Hasan had been increasingly agitated over the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he reportedly said the U.S. "war on terror" was a "war on Muslims." Officials have seized Hasan's computer to determine his role in the blog posts and other writings.
______________________________________________________________________
Fort Hood shooter regularly described war on terror as "war on Islam"
Islamic jihadists routinely characterize anti-terror efforts as part of a "war on Islam." But of course, there is no war on terror, and there is no war on Islam. There is just the Islamic jihad against the U.S. and the West. "Hasan Called War on Terror 'War Against Islam,' Classmate Says," by Justin Blum for Bloomberg, November 6:
Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people and wounding 30 others at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas, regularly described the war on terror as "a war against Islam," according to a doctor who was in a graduate program with him.
While studying for a masters degree in public health in 2007, Hasan used a presentation for an environmental health class to argue that Muslims were being targeted by the U.S. anti-terror campaign, said Val Finnell, a classmate.
"He was very vocal about the war, very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second," said Finnell, 41, a preventive medicine doctor in Los Angeles, in an interview today. "He was always concerned that Muslims in the military were being persecuted."...
Posted by Robert on November 6, 2009 12:15 PM | 45 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!
The very fact that the US military had a commissioned officer who is muslim shows that there are decision makers in the chain of command who must be smoking crack.
The idiots who granted this piece of shit his commission should be stripped of their commissions and their pensions.
I wonder if you would feel the same type of rage if the shooter was a blue-eyed all American catholic boy? All religions should go to hell. With that said, anyone with the urge to go on a shooting spree to kill innocent people should commit suicide first.
Actions speak louder than words, but the self-righteous crusaders want to live by their own rules.
Byron,
Please name for me one Catholic Theologian who has encouraged othe Catholics or Christians in the name of the Bible or Jesus Christ to strap C4 on their children and have them detonate in a crowded bus, or school or hospital.
You sir, are a facilitator of terrorism by denying that Islam and not Christianity is the problem. Your antipathy towards Christianity seems rooted in the secular humanism, the other form of fascism that always makes allowance for the Islamo-fascists. What you do not understand is that when Islam is done with Christians and Jews, you are next. At this time, they simply count on your complicity in helping them aquire nuclear and other forms of mass destruction.
You need to compare the Word of Christ with the ravings of Mohamed in support of evil. The Koran is a rather boring tome, so I suggest you read one of Robert Spencer's condensations.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition slaughtered millions in the name of god, every major world religion has been bathed in blood. From Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to Buddhism and to whatever other major religion one wishes to include, people have killed ruthlessly in the name of their god or gods and their religion. Extremist muslims may strap on C4 belts to detonate on crowded buses or busy markets, but the good christians sit behind a computer screen and drop 10k bombs on schools, markets, hospitals, funerals, weddings, birthday parties, killing thousands of innocent people from the comfort of their own country. As I said above, all religions can go to hell.
Actions speak louder than words, but the self-righteous crusaders want to live by their own rules.
JB and Byron.............you're both right, so let's not bicker.
it is not the WORD OF GOD that is at fault or culpable. it is mankind. we are the perpetrators of evil, not GOD. it makes no difference which 'cloth' we wear. as byron stated each of the worlds religions has at one time or another comitted murderous acts in the name of the DIVINE. that does not condemn the DIVINE, rather, the perpetrators.
at this time in history, it is the islamists who are doing the dirty work. and having the angry sympathies of the world focused against them...and understandably. the actions of the westerners...i.e. bombing of civilians, etc, although equally horrific, are in response to the acts done by the murderous mass affiliating themselves with islam and blaming their deeds on their "god" note that's a small 's'.
This is my church
This is where I heal my hurt
It's a natural grace
Of watching young life shape
It's in minor keys
Solutions and remedies
Enemies becoming friends
When bitterness ends
This is my church [3x]
This is my church
This is where I heal my hurt
It's in the world I become
Content in the hum
Between voice and drum
It's in change
The poetic justice of cause and effect
Respect, love, compassion
This is my church
This is where I heal my hurt
For tonight
God is a DJ [3x]
This is my church [3x]
The word of the muslim god is that idolators must be slain. It's in their koran. Tens of millions of my Hindu ancestors were slaughtered when muslims followed that dictum.
The Inquisition was in large part a reaction to 600 years of islamic occupation of Spain. People were killed, but it was not in the millions as Byron claims. It numbered only in the thousands.
The MO of muslim invaders of India was "convert or die". For the most part, the MO of the Inquisition was "Convert or leave". The Moros and the Jews left. Picking on the Jews was of course, a mistake. They were not the real trouble makers. The muslims were. The "reconquista" was really directed at muslims.
But the other important point that Byron misses is that the Catholic Church of today acknowledges the inquisition was wrong and contrary to what Jesus taught.
But:
(1) Have muslims acknowledged that the Turkish slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians almost a century ago was wrong? The answer is no. In fact, Turkish governments since then and until today deny that it even happened!!!! Why do you think Turkey's admission to the European Union is consistently vetoed?
(2) Have muslims in any way acknowledged the huge slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus (according the some historians the largest genocide in human history.....some say as high as 80 million)? The answer is no.
(3) Has any muslim scholar of note acknowledged as unislamic Abdul Rahman's death sentence for apostasy in Afghanistan a few years ago? The answer is no.
For muslims to acknowledge the Hindu slaughter as unislamic would be for them to admit that their allah god is wrong. I don't think that is going to happen, because their allah god says that idolators must be slain. Buddhists and Hindus particularly are looked upon by muslims as polytheistic idolators.
So Douglas, you are mistaken. As a person of Hindu ancestry I submit that the word of the muslim god is CULPABLE.
I know how the Indo Canadian community interacts. Muslim paki vitriol toward Hindus is particularly acute. Remember, it was brown people (muslim pakis) who were murdering other brown people (Hindus) in Mumbai a year ago.
Lots of shit has happened in human history. We cannot undo the past. But if a wrong was committed, we can at least acknowledge it.
(1) Americans for the most part acknowledge the crime of slavery and the injustices committed against indigenous peoples.
(2) Americans for the most part acknowledge that their war in Viet Nam was a mistake.
(3) Germans acknowledge their crimes against the Jews.
(4) The Catholic Church acknowledges that the Inquisition was wrong.
(5) Even a communist like Nikita Krutschev denounced the crimes of Stalin.
(6) Japanese, for the most part, acknowledge that their World War 2 genocide of Chinese was a crime.
Byron,
Let us also not forget that the mortal co-founder of Islam was a theif, a mass murderer and pedophile. I believe his collaborator "Allah" is actually Lucifer. Both names mean "the light".
The secular left may break bread with these Islamo-fascists at their own ultimate peril. The Islamists will not be satisfied by merely eliminating the Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Budhists, the koran specifically tells them to eliminate you as well.
You sir, are a TARGET of Islamo-fascism, I am trying to save your life by waking you up.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
"The word of the muslim god is that idolators must be slain. It's in their koran."
In the past, Muslims warned Christians and Jews to convert to Islam, or pay Jizya tax (an Islamic tax imposed on religious minorities) or leave the country. How do YOU explain the 25,000 to 35,000 Jews who call Iran home?
"You sir, are a TARGET of Islamo-fascism, I am trying to save your life by waking you up."
I am a target of all religions, simply because I do not believe in any false gods, including your god. I am not defending the actions of the Muslims, just simply pointing out that all relgions are evil, and they can all go to hell.
Actions speak louder than words, but the self-righteous crusaders want to live by their own rules.
Well Byron, maybe you can produce some authoritative history that says millions were killed in the Inquisition, but I doubt that.
The idolators I have talked about are my Hindu ancestors. Muslims slaughtered tens of millions. The choice for Hindus was "convert or die". I am not wrong about that.
As far as the Christians and Jews are concerned, you can be sure that they are second-class citizens in muslim countries. A coptic Christian in Egypt cannot even do minor repairs to his church without written permission from the President.
You seem to think that the Jizya is OK. I would suggest that 25,000 to 35,000 Jews still call Iran home for 2 main reasons:
(1) The Persians are more civilized than the Arabs, but that is only relative.
(2) The Jews can afford to pay the Jizya. Far be it from a good muslim to pass up gratuitous extortion money. Why do you think muslims (disproportionately to their numbers) clog welfare rolls in Europe? Even verse 8:41 of the koran reserves 20% of the loot from theft and extortion for the god and prophet themselves.
What do you think the choices would be for some Christian or Jew who either cannot or refuses to pay the Jizya?
The Parsis, who originated in Iran, are monotheistic too. That wasn't good enough for the muslims when they invaded Persia. The muslims demanded of the Parsis loyalty and servitude to the prophet of Islam as well. The polytheistic Hindus gave the monotheistic Parsis refuge in India where they still practice their faith freely to this day.
At the end of the day, the root of all religious atrocities stems from man, because just like Muslims killing Muslims, Jews kill Jews, and Hindus kill Hindus, and the good Catholics are ahead of the class in the good old USA, aka the GOP. There is no need to single out any one group, even if you hate Muslims, that doesn't make you a good Christian. I welcome all people into my home with an open mind and open heart, what a fool am.
Actions speak louder than words, but the self-righteous crusaders want to live by their own rules.
vinod, out of total respect, there are countless people who follow the muslim faith, who in no wise practice hatred, murder or any other activity offensive to GOD. i lived and worked and married in iran for 13 years and know many wonderful people who practice islam.
it's a bit pedantic to cast a shadow on a group for the misdeeds of some. all religions have or have had their religious fanatics and murderers in the name of GOD. no exceptions. that includes hindus. or any other group. but i'm not here to pitch pennys in tete a tete, rather to stand up for any posture that holds that goodness exists everywhere as does evil. there are those who practice both. again, no exceptions. too, there are those who perpetrate evil who wear no 'cloth'. just dumb, ignorant, mean selfish assholes who do hurt to life.
i believe it was gangeez khan and his son, timur-link who used the phrase, "convert or die, it is the same".
Well Douglas, just what the hell am I supposed to think when the god of Islam says "slay the idolators"?
That's why I say that the word of their god is CULPABLE. It's in that fucking koran of theirs.
Like I said in the other thread about Fort Hood: "Why should we expect anything different from any other piece of human garbage whose piece of shit god in their piece of shit holy book tells him to "slay the idolator"?"
Why should I not believe that muslims take that dictum seriously, when vis a vis Hindus especially, they have done exactly that? Judging by the events in Mumbai a year ago, they are still trying.
And judging by events in Fort Hood, there was one previoulsy self proclaimed jihadist piece of shit who was trying there too.
If you want to to engage in some sort of exculpatory "cultural relevancy", I can't help that. I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.
you take conversation and dialogue to conflict, which arrives at nothing but discord.
those who do good in life do so in service of GOD. it makes no difference what they call themselves, and although i am in agreement with you en re the situation with faciast/radical/militant muslims i disagree with your discounting a peoples for the conduct of some. and i don't attack you or criticize you in the process, rather, i see things differently and no amount of your posturing and insulting will change that. i respect your point of view...i don't embrace it. i see EVERY human being as an individual, not as a religion or as a race..you and your's included. i have lived in india twice and i can say unequivocally that i saw much that pained me. does that mean that the hindus are bad? hardly. but there are those amongst them who do ill, as there are countless who do good. it's that simple. try as you might to inflame dialogue, you do it a disservice, as it is dialogue coupled to diplomacy that brings about results, not attack.
i can easily line up alongside you and make a list a mile long about the atrocities perpetrated by militant muslims and trust me on this, i, too, have a list and my blood, although not at a boil, is superheated. but i will not trade a level mind and rationality for their opposites, under any conditions. i will continue to seek out the good in human nature even when the sky is clouded with the blood and agony of evil. because it is the joining of the forces of good, that ultimately defeat evil. fighting evil with evil is a lose/lose proposition. only love and good defeat evil. my teacher (guru/master) in india, a parsee, taught us to see life not in dichotomys or opposites, but rather in union. not as ''good" or "evil" but rather in degrees of good. starting from next to no good, all the way up to supreme (DIVINE) good.
Douglas, I am not taking any conversation to conflict. And I don't believe I have insulted anybody either, unless you believe that my calling that bastard in Fort Hood a "piece of shit" is an insult. I don't really consider that an insult. To me it is a statement of fact.
I would submit that the god of Islam in the koran takes theology to conflict when it says things like "slay the idolator". Taking vociferous objection to that is not taking anything to conflict. The koran does so by preaching murder in the first place. To me, any god who says such a thing is a piece of shit, and I will say so.
If I, as a Hindu, wish to be an idolator and worship multiple gods (including cows), then it is none of allah's fucking business.
As far as there being muslims out there who have committed no crime, you are quite right about that. I can live happily with people of any faith who do not do violence against me. The problem is that Hindus have been the primary target of violence by muslims since the inception of their faith. It's still going on (Mumbai). What the hell else am I supposed to think?
So when their god preaches murder, and then some muslim becomes a piece of shit when obeys his piece of shit god, I will speak my mind.
In the wise words of Perry Farrell, "you know the man you hate, you look more like him day by day."
The Christian God also preaches murder to the infidels. Read about Joshua. Or the End Times. I love that all of these Christians are collecting funds to send Jews back to Israel as if they are doing them a favor. In reality, they believe that the Jews have to be in Israel for Jesus to come back in order to murder all of the non-believers. The Christian God is so benevolent, my ass.
Have fun going in circles.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
Well Lcacique, if what you say is true, then you and I can agree that the Christian god is a piece of shit too. But remember, I said that I can live with anybody of any faith as long as they don't do violence against me.
Christians have probably done lots of shitty things, but I have cited examples where they have also acknowledged what they have done to be wrong. And Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Parsis etc. have not killed 80 million Hindus, and they are not trying to kill us now.
The muslims did slaughter us. They are still trying to kill us. And they acknowledge nothing.
So good luck with your attempts at exculpatory cultural relevance. Political correctness doesn't cut any ice with me.
One article pertaining to muslims in India and the other pertaining to muslims in the United States.
Big deal.
What would you expect a muslim in India to say? What would you expect a muslim in America to say? Would you expect him to proclaim from the roof tops that Jihad against infidels is OK? Only the ones who are apparently suicidal, like that bastard at Fort Hood, seem to be inclined to behave that way.
India, in spite of diligent efforts by muslims to conquer her, remains a majority Hindu nation. Hindus, unlike Persian, didn't knuckle under. Hindus paid for that in blood. Would you expect many muslims to show their true colors in the locale of their greatest crime?
Would you expect a Nazi to preach German supremacy in Moscow? Would you expect many Nazis to show their true colors in the locale of their greatest crime?
Would you expect a Japanese to preach emperor worship in Beijing? Would you expect many Japanese militarists to show their true colors in the locale of their greatest crime?
Apparently, according to the way the FBI and the US Military handled that piece of shit from Fort Hood, preaching death to the infidel is OK in the United States. He was a commissioned officer. But then his Commander and Chief kissed the hand of the Saudi King.
You can be sure that most muslims in a minority situation are not going to openly preach death against non muslims (at least not very much anyway), especially when those mere infidels are in a position to defend themselves.
I would give some credence to these pretensions if there were such events in a mosque in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
vinod, you have some attachment to president obama kissing the hand of kg fahd. one of the pbh'ers has an avatar of then president bush kissing kg fahd on the cheek.....so fricken what. remember what president bush said, ".........our saudi friends" yeah, like the fox in the chicken house or the cobra in the bed.
i think of our presidents as men who generally--withing themselves--try to do good. do they make mistakes....HELL YES. but all in all, americans and american presidents have done more to bring good to the world than any other nation or leaders in history.
Vinod,
You are exactly correct. Mohamed knew that when he was still week in Mecca he had to talk peace. After he moved to Medena, he dropped the facade.
Following his example, the Islamists continue to crank out their "religion of peace" propaganda while they infiltrate the non-muslim world as they cotinue the quest for total domination.
The Europeans have already capitulated. If the US doesn't wake up, the rest of the world will fall.
All muslims are potential enemy combatants unless they renounce the koran. I have many seemingly peaceful muslim neighbors. They attend a mosque where I know the Imam to be a radical Wahbbist.
CAIR is the main propaganda arm of Islam in the US. Every word they speak is a calculated lie.
People who speak against muslims in the US media are silenced.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
Douglas, you are right about two things. The Saudis are not our friends, and most American presidents have done more good for mankind than the leaders of any other countries. But in my mind it stopped when Bush Sr replaced Reagan.
I would have a kinder assessment for Clinton if he had not blundered by attacking Serbia. But I will at least admit that the economy and national finances were in better shape under Clinton. However, we must remember that he had a Republican controlled congress too.
Bush Jr was the guy whose administration let the Bin Laden crowd fly out of North America on 9/11 when every other aircraft in North America was grounded.
Bush Jr was also the guy who attacked Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11.
A lot of bloody good Bush Jr did.
Obama is the guy whose worshipping media hallelujah chorus makes me want to puke.
Obama is the guy who campaigned on a ticket of "peace", but now has more troops deployed overseas than Bush ever did.
And Obama is the guy who is redefining the term "budget deficit". If Marc Faber and Doug Casey are right (and those guys have been right more often than they have been wrong), Obama will be the president who presides over the dissolution of the pensions of millions of American baby boomers.
A lot of bloody good that will do too.
I don't have any attachment to Obama kissing the Saudi King's hand. I am offended by it. What do you think would have happened to Roosevelt if he kissed Hirohito's or Hitler's hand?
Fastpitch, CAIR is the organization that has publicly stated that they want to replace the US Constitution with the koran.
What you say about Mecca and Medina is interesting. I am learning more and more about the koran. I am aware that the koran is not in chronological order, and that the Medina verses, which came later chronologically, are much more violent and ugly than the Mecca verses.
I take a more optimistic view of Europe. They are waking up, gradually. But I am afraid that it may turn bloody.
We must remember that when Spain's back was to the wall, the Spaniards took Spain back from their muslim occupiers. They still commemorate that feat.
Yeah Vinod, I know the place in Falls Church, Va on RT 7 near the old 7 Corners Mall.
Here is a quote from the Imam he was taught by: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting
The personal Web site for a radical American imam living in Yemen who had contact with two 9/11 hijackers praised Hasan as a hero.
The posting Monday on the Web site for Anwar al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the Fort Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their religion.
Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
Here is a link to Colonel Ralph Peter's NY Post column for 11/06/2009: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJ...
It is obvious that my childhood friend General George W. Casey, Jr. is either clueless or has succumbed to administration pressure based on his statements to the media Sunday.
"Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Sunday it's important for the country not to get caught up in speculation about Hasan's Muslim faith, and he has instructed his commanders to be on the lookout for anti-Muslim reaction to the killings at the Texas post. "
George, for the good of the service, RESIGN. You have disgraced the uniform you wear. It is this PC thinking that got those patriotic citizen - soldiers murdered. You have allowed enemy infiltration in the name of diversity and you make me sick.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
Fastpitch...I have seen it here in Canada on the CBC too. They have been more focused on that piece of shit Hasan than they have been on the victims. CBC, as you may or may not know, has that program called "Little Mosque on the Prairie".
I am not surprised that General Casey issued the directive he did. What else could he do? I suspect he has succumbed to Administation pressure. The only person higher than Casey in the Chain of Command is the Commander and Chief himself, who, as I never tire of pointing out, kissed the hand of the Saudi king.
No doubt he would instruct Casey to do the same.
I thought the army's job was to protect the American people from enemies, both foreign and domestic. Apparently the army's new mandate is to allow its commissioned officers to preach jihad.
Just think. The army's new mandate has opened new career opportunities for muslims in the United States. Next thing you know, preaching jihad will be a prerequisite to getting an officer's commission.
And Fastpitch, those muslims in the United States who condemned the attack are just lying for their piece of shit god, and they are lying to protect their own piece of shit asses. If they truly believe in what their piece of shit god says and what their piece of shit prophet said, they would be praising him like they no doubt are in places like Pukeistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Despite his quote about blacks just being a few years from the days when they were swinging from the trees, aztec still has not admitted he is a racist.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
Wow Lcacique, instead of adding something of substance to the debate, you only have the "racist" card?
I have never seen any comment of a racist nature from aztec. He has certainly not made any comment of a racist nature about brown folks like me. In fact, I have never seen anybody in this forum make "racist" comments.
Why haven't you used the "racist" card against me? Is it because I am not white?
I cannot think of anything more racist than the teachings and practice of Islam itself. The arabic word for "slave" ("abd") is used in arabic slang to also denote the colour "black". Why? Because historically arabs equate black folks to slaves. There have even been prominent imams in islam have have said that slavery is a legitimate form of jihad. Slavery wasn't even offically abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1963.
The prophet of islam owned black slaves himself and referred to blacks as "pug-nosed" and "raisinheads". I wonder how he would have referred to Hindus if he had lived long enough to participate in the Hindu slaughter (which was prevented when a Jewish woman had the good sense to kill him).
"Hard to believe the stupidity of these morons. It is as if they are only a few years from swinging from trees!" ~ aztec
The comment was made in reference to an African American woman who made a ridiculous comment. aztec has never attempted to clarify what he meant by the statement; therefore, one can assume that he was comparing blacks to monkeys.
You, on the other hand, do not appear to be racist - though you could be. You clearly hate the followers of a religion, which is pathetic in its own right. But I see no point in mentioning it as you freely admit your hatred.
Why would I care about how Islam views slavery? Good luck with your attempts at exculpatory cultural relevance.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
I do not recall seeing that comment of aztec's. I would have to know the context of it to know whether there were racial overtones.
Who did he think were the morons? And what did he think they being stupid about? Did he mention a specific race?
The islamic religion has nothing to do with race. You appear to think that hatred of a religion is pathetic. I hate a religion whose teachings were followed to result what was arguably (to some historians anyway) the largest genocide in human history, the majority of the victims of which were in the land of my birth and the followers of the religion into which I was born. Why should I have any sort of benevolent attitude toward them?
Judging by your comments so far, I doubt that you ever had the foggiest notion that such events even took place, and I wonder if you care.
Exculpatory cultural relevance? Try being original at least. Those were my words. You are the one who has engaged in that by trying to equate the flaws of other religions to the teachings and practice of Islam. You have not been able to refute a single point I have made, the most relevant of which are the following:
(1) Followers of other religions ideologies generally admit and acknowledge their wrongs. Furthermore, and most importantly from my perspective, they have not committed genocide against my people, and they are not trying to kill us now.
(2) Muslims did commit genocide against my people, and they admit and acknowledge nothing.
(3) They are still trying to kill us.
Since India's partition, muslim Pukeistan has started 3 wars against India. India defeated those low-life pakis each time too.
And then was Mumbai last year.
And you consider it pathetic that I hate that? Who is being pathetic? Why should I not hate some paki muslim piece of shit in Mumbai who was killing Hindus just because his victims were Hindu? Those muslim pieces of shit were just obeying their piece of shit god.
Or maybe you are racist against Hindus (I am not accusing you of that. I am just asking)? In the case of Hinduism, there is some relationship between race and religion. Substantially all of us are brown folks.
The thread has been deleted. He responded to a video of a black woman saying that she would never have to pay for gas again now that Obama was president. The woman's comment was ridiculous. So what? The context: the video and how blacks were reacting to Obama's win. Do you need any more assistance?
I have to be original? I can't point out your hypocrisy with your own words? Is that a rule?
I never equated one thing to another. That is simply your flawed interpretation of what I wrote.
Of course I care about Hindus that have been slaughtered by Muslims (and I know enough about the conflict there). I never gave the slightest hint otherwise. It does not mean that I forgive those Hindus who kill innocent Muslims - of course, you do not believe in such a concept because all Muslims are evil in your eyes.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
I wonder who that lady thought would be paying for her gas. Surely she was not so stupid to believe that nobody would be paying for it. People of any race who equate black folks to monkeys are not doing themselves any favours. That black lady was not doing her own race any favours either.
But it makes me laugh at the inferences that some people make about the intelligence (or lack thereof) of those who voted for McCain, and Bush previously. It seems that people on both the Republican and Democratic side don't really care about the intellect of those who vote for them.
No, you don't have to be original.
Actually, you have tried to equate one to the other. You have pointed out the misdeeds of followers of other ideologies, the implication being that they are no worse or no better than muslims. To be sure, some of the things that have been done in the name of other ideologies have been just as evil (such as the mass murders by Stalin). However, even from communists there has been at least some acknowledgment. One of Nikita Kruchev's first acts as Premier was to denouce the crimes of Stalin.
Innocent muslims? Well I suppose there are many, just as in the eyes of some Europeans in World War 2 there were innocent Germans. But French Maquis and other resistence groups in occupied countries still cold bloodedly killed German soldiers. They were, in their eyes, interlopers.
I can see how some people look at muslims the same way. That is the way that some non muslim Berbers look at them in North Africa. That is the way some non muslim Persians look at them in Iran. The people of Spain looked at them that way during their reconquista. And that is the way many Hindus look at them in the Indian subcontinent.
I really wish it didn't have to be that way. I am prepared to accept anybody's faith and ideology as long as they leave me alone. Most Hindus, indeed most civilized people, are that way. That has definitely been the Hindu way (although it has never been perfect) with groups like Sikhs, Christians, and Parsis.
But three times in my father's life (and twice in mine), muslim Pukeistan has made war on Hindu India. And each one, in the eyes of most of us, is just a continuation of what has been going on for almost 1400 years.
Mumbai was just one more chapter.
Remember, Arabs and their lackeys attacked India. India never invaded Arabia.
Acknowledging common traits between two separate entities is not the same as equating them. I do not recall saying that one group is better or worse than the other. It's kind of ironic that you have constantly been equating historical events, making all kinds of comparisons, and justifying acts based on the actions of other groups, yet you accuse me of doing so.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
Yes Lcacique. You are right. You have not said that one group is worse than another. That’s the problem. You are not passing judgment. You seem to be trying your best to give reasons why you shouldn’t.
Why are you so reluctant to form a relative judgment? That is what thinking people should be doing all the time, whether it’s a choice of jobs, investments, life styles, a spouse, what to have for dinner, or comparing the activities and/or philosophy of one ideology versus any other. Are you afraid of being condemned as being “racist”?
Then you turn around and condemn me for passing judgment. You used the word “pathetic”. And of course I use historical events to form my judgment. I also use what I know of the basis of a particular ideology (in this case, islamic teachings, of which I am learning more and more each day). I also form judgment on the basis of how people respond to evil that their particular group may or may not have done. Maybe you can suggest a more appropriate basis for forming my judgment.
So I am not accusing you of doing the same thing I am doing. You are doing the very opposite of what I am doing. You are not passing judgment at all, and therefore have little of substance to say.
vinod, I see no point in judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few within the group. I also try to stay away from making sweeping generalizations.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
vinny, 'some people' are spineless, and they will preach 'tolerance' until the day tolerance brings about destruction.... they won't commit to nothing but tolerance and other extreme ideas like: 'everybody wins'.
b.s.
nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.
Goin_south, maybe some people just can't handle a non-caucasian telling it like he sees it, especially if that view is confrontational and does not fit within the norms of "political correctness".
I can just imagine how some people in the forum would be hyperventilating if a white guy had been saying what I have said in here. It might be considered "offensive".
I see no reason to tolerate the intolerant, especially since they have been killing my people for 1400 years, have acknowledged none of it, and are still trying to kill us.
Hey redskin,
I suggest you study the book on Islam and Muslims. It is called the koran or Q'uran. Unlike Jesus Christ's message of peace, the pedophile and mass-murderer, Mohamed directs his followers to convert, enslave or behead all others. The meaning of the word Islam is "to submit" to Allah. Allah means "the light" and coincidently, so does Lucifer.
A closer examination of Islam reveals not a religion, but a fascist political system inspired by Satan, aka "Lucifer" or "Allah"
The ultimate goal of Islam as stated by the so called prophet and mass murdering child molester is to replace all governments with sharia. If you you are serious about learning why a muslim plans to kill or enslave you, read Robert Spencer. He has published at least six books on the subject.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
By the way, I am reading one of Spencer's books now (The Truth about Muhammad). Don't the followers of the "religion of peace" have a fatwa on Spencer?
It does not take a spine to engage in sweeping generalizations over the internet, vinod. What a brave man you are battling the Muslims on a Colombian forum.
fastpitch, I think it is time that you were demoted to slowpitch. Better yet, tee ball. All over that heavenly book that you worship, the Christian God is described as "the light." What an embarrassing conundrum for the Christians who invented Satan. God is light, Satan is light: That's a big "oops." What happens if you do not submit to God? Oh yeah, you go to hell. The Christian God is loving? Only if you love him more than anything else including your family. Clearly, God was created in the image of g_s, who is equally as desperate and in need of affection. And your loving Jesus is going to do what in the End Times? He is going to lovingly slaughter anyone who doesn't accept him as their savior. What a swell guy!
Why in the hell would I read someone famous for manipulating evidence and/or ignoring it so as to promote a distorted view of Islam? I am all for reading criticism of the religion and its followers, but I do want it to be based in fact.
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
They do Vinod, but he ( Robert Spencer) is undeterred.
I don't see how disagreeing with a political group is hate or racism, but people who are unable to rationally support their positions always change the subject, so you are probably correct.
For example, if you say global warming is a hoax, you must be a NAZI or you want to poisin the air and water. These same people consider CO2 (life could not exist without it) a pollutant. Facts are such a nuisance for liberals.
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
"In order to provide a public service to those agents in the CIA, FBI, U.S. Army and any other intelligence or police agencies that may still have their politically correct blinders on, I offer here several tips to help enable criminal justice professionals to recognize that there may be a terrorist among them. Concerned civilians should find these tips helpful as well:
1.) If your neighbor begins giving away his belongings, including multiple copies of the Koran, while suggesting that he is "going away," you might know a terrorist.
2.) If your health care professional suggests that the answer to your depression, marital ills, loneliness, or post-traumatic stress is to begin praying to Allah and attending the local mosque, you might know a terrorist.
3.) If a colleague from your department leading a seminar veers off topic and begins suggesting that infidels should be decapitated and have boiling oil poured down their throats, you might be working with a terrorist.
4.) If a guy dressed up like Osama bin Laden shows up at the local convenience store, or appears at the office wearing a shalwar-kameez, you might be in store for some live ammunition directed your way. And you are probably in the presence of a terrorist.
5.) If the subject of your electronic surveillance repeatedly attempts to contact an Imam who is also an Al-Qaeda recruiter known to be in contact with suppliers to Osama bin Laden and associates of the Blind Sheik al Rahman and whose phone number is found in Ramzi Binalshibh's apartment, you might be surveilling a terrorist.
6.) If someone in your office, shop, store, mall, street or stadium yells "Allahu Akbar!" you had better run or seek cover. At this point you definitely know a terrorist." Ralph Alter
Redskin,
What evidence do you have to refute anything Spencer has written? How many Christians were among the 9/11 hijackers, the Bali night club bombers, the Madrid train bomings, the London subway bombings, the US embassies in Africa, the Kobar towers, the thousand of homicide bombers in Isreal, Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan, India.
Are you a Muslim? You seem to be an apologist. Where do you get your facts? Why do you ignore the obvious evidence that if you are not a muslim you are a target of jihad.
As for as What Jesus said about loving God and foresaking all possesions, how does that equate to violence? It only makes sense that you would love your Creator more than one of His creations. He did not say that you were to execute those who refused to follow Him. He said that they would not enter heaven.
I don't understand your anger and frustration. Do you always feel this way when the payote wears off?
Choose Liberty, there is no such thing as equality.
1.What is your “undistorted” view of Islam.
2.Just exactly what evidence has Robert Spencer distorted and manipulated? What is the undistorted evidence?
3.Nothing that Robert Spencer has written is based on fact? What then, pray tell, are the facts? Where has Spencer erred?
Please be specific.
I will wait for straight-forward answers, but I am not holding my breath.
jb, ... vinny, you see the lunacy of 'one particular member' here on pbh...
writing b.s. out 's azzzz? I think he's likely following in the steps of Hasan.
_________
The Beginning of the End of political correctness is upon us!
nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.
Why would I waste my time answering your questions? Do you intend to listen with an open mind? Absolutely not. You have already demonstrated that over and over. You just want to slam all Muslims and pretend that I am apologizing for the terrorists because I do not tag along and damn all Muslims. I do not have to apologize for Muslims and I will not apologize for terrorists - the two are not synonymous.
Who publishes Spencer's books? A University press? A publisher with a political agenda? Are they reviewed in academic journals? Does he have a degree in Islamic studies? Are there scholars who disagree with Spencer? What do they say? Have you investigated their points to see if they have merit or do you simply ignore them because they contradict what you already believe?
"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon
mark my word, vinny... jb,... some particular pbh member will be on here shortly, proclaiming 'religious profiling' and such in regards to Hasan of Fort Hood... and defending the jihad.
nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.
damn, my special brothers...............from the read, it sounds like we've boarded the train to nowhere. i think back to lincoln when he responded to someone's comment that 'GOD was on our side', by saying, 'better we hope that we're on GOD's side.'
all religions/belief systems are riddled with holes and have members who do evil, even attributing their works to GOD. and these very some religions/beliefs have those souls who devote their lives to good.....which as brother southbound pointed out, "GOOD" if we focus ourselves and our lives to the pursuit of the latter, we'll have little time to camp out on the evil doers, out side of the need to periodically stamp them out.
pax
funny, vinod. i'm gonna hide and not take anyone's side. if it's a darky day i'll get out my mantan........if it's a day for fey folks, i'll get out my spade-fade.
Lcacique, that is pretty much the response that I anticipated. You would be wasting your time?
You were the one who wrote the following:
"Why in the hell would I read someone famous for manipulating evidence and/or ignoring it so as to promote a distorted view of Islam? I am all for reading criticism of the religion and its followers, but I do want it to be based in fact."
Your inferences are obvious. You infer the following:
(1) Spencer is famous for manipulating evidence? Prove it. Who of academic repute has made this allegation? If anyone, including you, makes an allegation that evidence is manipulated, that person should be able to present the unmanipulated evidence. Instead you say "I don't have the time". How original!!
(2) You infer that what Spencer says is not based on fact. Then prove that what Spencer presents as facts is inaccurate. Then present your facts!! Why does it matter who publishes Spencer's books? It's the content that matters, and not the publisher.
(3) You infer that Spencer's view of islam is distorted. Actually you don't just infer it. You actually said it.. Then please give us the undistorted view.
Why do you ask if there are scholars who disagree with Spencer? You sir, were one who claimed that Spencer is famous for manipulating evidence. Therefore it is up to you to provide us with names of scholars who question Spencer. And then it would be up to you explain why the opinions and evidence of those scholars are more valid than the opinions and evidence of Spencer.
If you had any of the foregoing to support your case, you would have presented it to us by now. So we wouldn't want you to waste any more of your time.
