World War III

aaharvel

read-alot wrote:

Can a good Muslim be a good America? This was asked of an American who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply.

Theologically- no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously- no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran,2;256)

Scripturally- no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically- no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially- no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically- no. Because he must subit to the mullah (spiritual leaders) who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America.

Domestically- no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually- no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically- no. Because Islam, Muhammad and the Quran do not allow freedom and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.

Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autucratic.

Spiritually- no. Because when we declare "one nation under God" the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he called in love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation .. perhaps we should be suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish .... it's still the truth.

Well let me tell you something. That "American" is full of ****. You can take Christian principles and fill in the blanks with over half of those.

This is the absolute dumbest **** post i've ever read on here, and it's borderline racist at that. There's a HUGE difference between TRUTH and FACT, Mr. Read-Alot. It's just too damn bad you don't know what it is.

I'm embarassed that we're from the same state.

F1nut

Andrew, pull your head out, it's all true.

brettw22

The main thing that struck me was quoting the Quran........people have been quoting the bible to justify this or that for years. The same judgemental attitude should be applied to both parties if you're goign to start quoting 'scripture.'

read-alot

aaharvel wrote:

Well let me tell you something. That "American" is full of ****. You can take Christian principles and fill in the blanks with over half of those.

This is the absolute dumbest **** post i've ever read on here, and it's borderline racist at that. There's a HUGE difference between TRUTH and FACT, Mr. Read-Alot. It's just too damn bad you don't know what it is.

I'm embarassed that we're from the same state.

Andrew I'm really happy to know which side of the fence you stand on.

When you finally get you head out of your **** maybe you will see that I wasn't the American who lived in Saudia Arabia, just the person giving his view point. I sir am not a racist.

Demiurge

I'd love to see the explicit, direct, and non-parsed Bible quotes from the NT that advocate killing non-believers as can be found in the Koran in that context.

It is what it is, and there's no running from it. Then again, this isn't Christianity against Islam. I wasn't aware Christianity was our nationalized religion.

It's Islam against the free world, and their guide is the Koran and the extremists are following it.

aaharvel

Can a good religious bigot of any kind be a good American?

Theologically- no. Because he sees the world in black and white. Either too stupid, too lazy, too prejudiced, or too SCARED to take that extra step and see the world for what it truly is.

Religiously- no. Because no other religion is accepted by his except Christianity. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."
Exodus: 20

Scripturally- no. Because the Bible, like the Quran, shares many passages that are self-serving to their own idealogical message. Sometimes promoting incest, slavery, death to women and children, and others who don't believe in the one God.

Geographically- no. Because his allegiance is to the TRUTH. Not fact. At least turning to Mecca to pray 5 times a day seems more loyal to one's religion an ideals than going to church once a week to cleanse one's guilt. Many Sunday church-goers do a full 180 the second they leave and don't re-enter "Good Christian Mode" until they step right back in 7 days later. Being a Good Christian = 90 minutes a week for many in this country. The rest of the time is open season. Case in point, see Read-A-Lot's post.

Socially- no. Because his allegiance to Christianity (even though he's probably never even read the bible) forbids him to make friends with Muslims or anyone who isn't white Protestant.

Politically- no. Because anyone who isn't white protestant obviously can't be trusted, and this goes against the very teachings of our Founding Fathers. Then again, if he actually paid attention in those History classes as a kid, he would know this. Destruction of America? Look in the mirror.

Domestically- no. "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10) --Yes, like the Quran, the bible's got 'em too. Of course, if you've actually read at least some of the bible, you would know this.

"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:13) ---Now, this being the word of God, I wonder if I actually do this, would I be pardoned? Doubtful..

Intellectually- no. Obviously.

Philosophically- no. Because redneck religious bigots preach freedom of expression but don't allow others to preach it or to live it themselves. Unless of course... they're white protestant. Suggesting that we should be suspicious of an entire race or religious following just because they don't follow our own ideals counteracts what this country stands for, has fought for, and died for. You want an Autocracy? A Dictatorship? Border-line **** ideals? You got it. These are the ones who simply cannot co-exist with a Democracy.

Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autucratic. (Exactly. And this is a Democracy. Hate-filled speeches like the post above would fit right in in a dictatorship or theological autocracy. They have absolutely no bearing on a Democracy whatsoever.)

Spiritually- no. Because when we declare "one nation under God" the Christian's God is loving and kind, ---except for the many examples in the bible where the adjectives 'Vengeful' and 'Jealous' are used to describe him/her/it. But if you actually read the bible, you would know this.

Therefore after much study and deliberation .. perhaps we should be suspicious of ALL Religions in this country. Not just the ones that we as a people find it convenient to beat like a dead horse. TRUTH but no FACT? Here's some Truth for ya.. too many Christians in this country preach but don't practice. That's not being a good American. That's being a fraud. Read the book you covet. Re-read the Bill Of Rights.

Call this post what you wish .... stupid? Depends on your POV. Take it to the depths of eternity, multiply it by a thousand, and you'll still barely have an inkling of how much Read-A-Lot's post totally offended me. And that's not Truth. That's FACT.

aaharvel

read-alot wrote:

Andrew I'm really happy to know which side of the fence you stand on.

When you finally get you head out of your **** maybe you will see that I wasn't the American who lived in Saudia Arabia, just the person giving his view point. I sir am not a racist.

Of course you weren't the American who said that. You're just passing along his "point of view" like it's gospel or at the very least should be taken as such.

The only one who's got his head stuck up his **** is you. My eyes are wide open. Sir.

jdhdiggs

Andrew,

Thanks for proving you know absolutely nothing about Christianity and that your "much study and deliberation" abilities are crap yet again. Let's see the proof Demi asked for. Where in the NT does it state any of the BS you spouted? Of course your stating "religious bigot" in place of Christians, but then you're open minded and compassionate... :rolleyes:

Nice to know you're as closed minded and bigoted as you claim everyone else to be. Since you hate everyone in the country so much, why don't you move to France? Do they need personal trainers over there?

Your whole point is kind of like the muslim terrorist argument where you still claim that you "won" when even you changed your position and proved yourself wrong and never countered the main point. Are you willing to admit that most terrorists are muslim yet, or does your ignorance continue?

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

Your whole point is kind of like the muslim terrorist argument where you still claim that you "won" when even you changed your position and proved yourself wrong and never countered the main point. Are you willing to admit that most terrorists are muslim yet, or does your ignorance continue?

You thought my long-**** rant post was idiotic? LOL. Excellent. That was EXACTLY what I intended to be. Much like the one that it was based on. It's just a shame that no one else sees the 20/20.

And I love the fact that you bring up an old subject as the Muslims are terrorist thing. I never said Muslims don't make up a majority of them, I know they do. What's even more funny is that you backtrack from "99%+ of all terrorists are Muslim" to now "most terrorists are muslim". You don't even have the guts to admit your hyperbole even when others shove it right back in your face? Need proof? Here.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40190&page=2

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

Global Relief... that was leaked to Judith "aluminum tubes" Miller by the Bush administration. Not exactly something that goes with your overall theme- might want to rethink that one.

I banked on you not knowing the facts. Philip Shenon was the NYT reporter who tipped off this organization back in 2001. That's not his job, and he intentionally thwarted a state department investigation. This is doucumented by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

You might want to know the facts yourself there before you accuse others, bud.

unc2701 wrote:

Lemme see... Since the very start of the war on terror Bush himself has been telling us that they're tracking the terrorists through banking, so that doesn't really fly, either.

Do you understand the difference between details and vague references? Saying "We're tracking terrorist bank accounts, and cell phone traffic," isn't what the NYT was doing. They were telling people which banks, which cell phone companies, etc. were being tracked. The wealth of information we lost because of the NYT was huge.

We all know who you'd have blamed if there was another terrorist attack in this country, though! "It was Bush's fault, he didn't do enough to stop the terrorists!" "What did he know, and when did he know it!?"

unc2701 wrote:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed... he's the ron jeremy look-alike, right? The one very publicly arrested waaaaay before the phone tapping story broke? Guess the terrorists wouldn't think that maybe we'd follow up on that one seeing as how he was on the Daily Show... "Hey, wait! is that Khalid???? quick- call his cell, we're soooo giving him ****. Huh- he DOES look like Ron Jeremy there..."

Ahahaha, I love the rationalizing! Then you get pissed when people accuse you of supporting every country but your own. It's amazing. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was one example of many blown covers by the NYT. Can you please tell me why we needed to know who we were tracking, and how? This is a war.

unc2701 wrote:

See the wiretapping story, banking story, the financial stuff, they're all "No ****"... Any moron knows that we're tracking the finances and tapping phones and tracking their movements as best we can. The president's been telling us this since september 12th and he damn well better be doing it. It's his **** job. But his first oath is to uphold the constitution. This means you get to keep your guns, say whatever you want, and no be subjected to search and siezure with out a warrant.

Terrorists don't have Constitutional rights. Quit acting like someone from the government is listening in on your 3 AM beat off sessions to the 1-900 lines. They're tracking terrorists, and organizations like the NYT are **** it all up for our intelligence agencies, and abetting the enemy.

unc2701 wrote:

That makes no sense. If it's false, then... never mind. I'm tired and trying to apply logic these posts is a lost cause.

What doesn't make sense? You're sitting here substantiating the actions of the NYTs exposing everything the FBI and CIA is trying to do to crack down on terrorism as no big deal. You're being illogical right there. There is no reason for the general public to have any intricate detail into the terror groups and organization these intelligence agencies are monitoring.

You're also trying to paint the picture that Joe Blow down the road is in danger of having his civil liberties infringed upon. What a joke -- you're a Liberal (please don't throw another tantrum) who suddenly believes in the Constitution? Riiiiight.

It's hard not to believe this has nothing to do with the Constitution so much as it has to do with your disdain for George W. Bush.

unc2701 wrote:

But here's what you need to do, Demi. Ask yourself what our government would have to do for you to go against it. I hope even you've got a line that cannot be crossed.

I'd have a big problem with a government that just pretended like 9/11 didn't happen. I'd have a big problem with a government who acted in a completely illogical fashion by not using every tool at it's disposal to uncover terror plots, rings, and chatter. I'd have a big problem with a government who sat on it's hands and put it's citizens in harms way by not protecting them.

This administration has done a fantastic job of keeping us safe from new attacks, and there have been several attempts since 9/11. Our Allies have done a fantastic job as well, as Britain demonstrated yesterday.

Quick question for you -- Do you know how Britain caught all of those people yesterday?

Wiretaps, & tracking banking information. Like was said above, thank God the NYT didn't have a chance to tip these guys off.

aaharvel

"Nice to know you're as closed minded and bigoted as you claim everyone else to be."

I'm not close-minded and I'm not bigoted. If anything, i'm shedding light on a close-minded and bigoted post by reversing roles of the argument.

Do I believe those Terrorists are Muslim? Absolutely. Are we in a War on Terror? Absolutely. Do we need to win? Absolutely. Are we going to win? Absolutely.

Should I stereo-type an entire group of people out of pure laziness?
Absolutely NOT. Again, I don't feel that way about most Christians. They're some of the greatest people on earth. But now maybe you have a clue as to what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such stupidity. Doesn't feel too good does it?

jdhdiggs

aaharvel wrote:

Well let me tell you something. That "American" is full of ****. You can take Christian principles and fill in the blanks with over half of those.

Really?

aaharvel wrote:

"Nice to know you're as closed minded and bigoted as you claim everyone else to be."

I'm not close-minded and I'm not bigoted. If anything, i'm shedding light on a close-minded and bigoted post by reversing roles of the argument.

Should I stereo-type an entire group of people out of pure laziness?
Absolutely NOT. Again, I don't feel that way about most Christians. They're some of the greatest people on earth. But now maybe you have a clue as to what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such stupidity. Doesn't feel too good does it?

Guess what champ, you just lost the moral high ground again with your hypocracy. Nice attempt at backtracking, too bad everyone already knows your true feelings. Oh, and who said I was on the receiveing end. BTW, if you try to make a point by reversing the argument, you say that ahead of time, not after you got called out on it.

Schadenfreud (sp) much?

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

Really?

Really. Christian principles as stated in the bible. Not Christian principles as stated in the heart. Er-go, i'm turning the argument on it's head.

Demiurge

This thread has everything in it except for gun talk.

F1nut

I'm not offended by your post, Andrew. You're entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be.

aaharvel

F1nut wrote:

I'm not offended by your post, Andrew. You're entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be.

Thanks F1 for that vote of confidence. And for however wrong bit. I've only heard that about a hundred times on these forums. Perhaps I AM losing my mind.

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

Really?



Guess what champ, you just lost the moral high ground again with your hypocracy. Nice attempt at backtracking, too bad everyone already knows your true feelings.

Schadenfreud (sp) much?

not backtracking anything. You're simply unable to get my original post. But it's ok. It was long, modeled after the previous. It happens.

jdhdiggs

Or maybe you can't graps your hypocracy that's in print... I love the rational "you didn't get my point". You ever think that I did? That maybe it went a little bit deeper than you thought? That your true hatred and bigotry have shown through yet again?

BTW, Show us the proof from the bible and follow Demi's advice. After all, you are attacking Christians and not Jews so use the NT.

jdhdiggs

Demiurge wrote:

This thread has everything in it except for gun talk.

We didn't? Crap...

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

We didn't? Crap...

Probably because that's the only rule that's enforced with ferocity. I have a few new toys I'd love to share.

aaharvel

jdhdiggs wrote:

Or maybe you can't graps your hypocracy that's in print... I love the rational "you didn't get my point". You ever think that I did? That maybe it went a little bit deeper than you thought? That your true hatred and bigotry have shown through yet again?

BTW, Show us the proof from the bible and follow Demi's advice. After all, you are attacking Christians and not Jews so use the NT.

Don't have to. Read the bible. It's all there. Every religious scripture that i'm aware of has it's ups and downs. The bible is no different.

And btw, thanks for not including my opinion on the war on terror in that quote, Very nice touch.

(edit) Hell yeah, let's talk about guns! Me and some friends are going to the shooting range in Wilkes next week. I can't wait!

BIZILL

F1nut wrote:

I'm not offended by your post, Andrew. You're entitled to your opinions, however wrong they may be.

sorry, my friend Andrew, but you and i stand divided on this one. i'm with jesse.

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

I banked on you not knowing the facts. Philip Shenon was the NYT reporter who tipped off this organization back in 2001. That's not his job, and he intentionally thwarted a state department investigation. This is doucumented by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

And how did Philip Shenon know? Judith Miller... she tipped off Holy Land Foundation charity ten day prior to Philip Shenon's gaff and she dropped the first article about frozen bank assets. Also documented by Patrick Fitzgerald. Now, sure that was still someone at the New York Times, but I'm guessing you're pro- Judith Miller.

Demiurge wrote:

Do you understand the difference between details and vague references? Saying "We're tracking terrorist bank accounts, and cell phone traffic," isn't what the NYT was doing. They were telling people which banks, which cell phone companies, etc. were being tracked. The wealth of information we lost because of the NYT was huge.

Do you? Go read the articles.

Demiurge wrote:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was one example of many blown covers by the NYT. Can you please tell me why we needed to know who we were tracking, and how? This is a war.

I don't thing this guy is who you think he is. Pakistan leaked his capture to everyone. It went out on USA today, Reuters, AP, everything... Actually, I can't find anything from the times before March 2nd 2003, but here's a march 1st 2003 fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79984,00.html

Demiurge wrote:

Terrorists don't have Constitutional rights.

Americans do... even american terrorists. And I think that the Supreme court know it's **** a lot better than you do.

Demiurge wrote:

Quit acting like someone from the government is listening in on your 3 AM beat off sessions to the 1-900 lines.

Funny. You're the one who posts all the babe pictures... which I've been meaning to ask you about that. I mean, we ALL appreciate the babe pictures, but your dedication is starting to creep me out. Seriously, dude, it's like your compensating for something. Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying your **** or have a microphallus or anything. I just think you might need to talk to a professional about your "issues".

Demiurge wrote:

Quick question for you -- Do you know how Britain caught all of those people yesterday?

Wiretaps, & tracking banking information. Like was said above, thank God the NYT didn't have a chance to tip these guys off.

Funny thing happened on Fox news last night:

Bill O'reilly wrote:

The fact that the NSA was able to intercept these phone calls that were made in the United States to al-Qaeda in Britain. By using the very controversial, although I understand that warrants were obtained for this by the FISA court…does that mean in your opinion that the Bush administration is ahhhhh–justified now in its original policy. Is this a big win politically for you guys?

See the FISA warrants WORK! Like I said, I'm fine with wiretapping. Just get the warrant. They did and sure enough the terror plot was still foiled!

Again. Are you going to let the government take away your handgun, even if they leave you a rifle?

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

This thread has everything in it except for gun talk.

Oh, and I got the gun talk it in, just for you (see above post).

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

I'd love to see the explicit, direct, and non-parsed Bible quotes from the NT that advocate killing non-believers as can be found in the Koran in that context.

Nice careful wording. You can't make the same challenge with the OT.

aaharvel

BIZILL wrote:

sorry, my friend Andrew, but you and i stand divided on this one. i'm with jesse.

I'm down with that man. If everyone agreed on everything the world would be a very boring place.

On that note, I'll take Read-A-Lot's post and put it in a broader perspective, technically with some of it I agree with what that "American" said. I just wish we wouldn't find it convenient to villafy just one religion, and the typecasting that ensues. Yet on the flipside, given the topic of this thread I can understand. However, let's not forget that no religion is perfect. There's plenty of blame to go around, and no one will ever change my mind that the vast majority who are Muslim, like Christians, are good at heart. I believe it's the fault of organized religion itself (or at the very least the misinterpretation of it by religious fanatics) that makeup the reasons we build fences around each other, we cater to our own dominion too much (That's from Ishmael, an excellent book btw). And what's ironic is that isn't what organized religion is or should be about. Imo that's where the hatred comes from, and that's how wars start.

ND13

The Koran has the Bible whipped in one area....the promise of 40 virgins when the male Muslim gets to whatever they call heaven.:p

Thom

read-alot wrote:

So are you saying you disagree with the whole post or just the one about a nation under God?

I don't agree with the entire post. You can find bad apples in every religion. If every Muslim in this country was as fanatical as you think don't you think a lot more **** would have blown up by now?

Demiurge

PolkThug wrote:

Nice careful wording. You can't make the same challenge with the OT.

I'm also not a Jew. He said Christians, and they subscribe to the NT.

In any event, feel free to quote from the OT saying that all 'non-believers' should be killed.

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

I'm also not a Jew. He said Christians, and they subscribe to the NT.
In any event, feel free to quote from the OT saying that all 'non-believers' should be killed.

Christians don't subscribe to the OT as well? I'm not going to quote verses on our sacred Polk ground. God had no problem slaughtering non-believers via Moses and his crew in the OT.