Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam
Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:32 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:30 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:26 PM
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.
Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:46 PM
BYTEMITE
Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:50 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Saturday, June 23, 2012 2:39 PM
Saturday, June 23, 2012 2:40 PM
Quote:yeah. a drama queen. If that's all you got out of reading this, then you're missing the point.
Quote:Pity you can't evolve in like manner.
Saturday, June 23, 2012 2:46 PM
Quote:It's curious at the lengths to which you go to ignore the point being made
Saturday, June 23, 2012 3:29 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
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.
Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:09 PM
CUDA77
Like woman, I am a mystery.
Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:40 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:07 AM
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:08 AM
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: I understand where this man is coming from, but frankly I feel pretty much the same about all religions...
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:30 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:02 AM
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:55 AM
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.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:18 AM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:50 AM
Quote:They resent the success of their neighbors and falsely think their own problems stem from the other guy doing well.
Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:05 AM
Sunday, June 24, 2012 10:59 AM
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...
Monday, June 25, 2012 11:59 AM
Monday, June 25, 2012 7:28 PM
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.
Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:17 PM
CATPIRATE
Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:53 PM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:36 AM
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-gays-to-death-quote.htm
Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:32 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:43 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 4:48 AM
AGENTROUKA
Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:13 AM
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:46 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:55 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:38 AM
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:39 AM
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:10 AM
HKCAVALIER
Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:14 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:01 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:20 AM
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?
Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:48 AM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:53 AM
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:03 PM
Quote:I'm fine with the Arab world.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:39 PM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:47 PM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:02 PM
Quote: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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:16 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=52311&p=1#902609 "I never posted such things ..." WOW! The MOTHERLOAD! THANKS!
Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:24 PM
Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:28 PM
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:03 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: So you do admit that 'shock and awe' is a terrorist tactic?
Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:32 PM
Quote:And the wars with Iraq had nothing to do with Christianity, so the 'shock and awe' nonsense is a complete non sequitur.
Sunday, July 1, 2012 3:05 PM
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]
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL