Is Islam a threat to Christianity around the globe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TxPatriot281
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hosemonkey said:
Then in all charity, we should endevour to send as many moslems as possible to heaven.
Click to expand...
I know some conservatives who feel that the slaughter in Iraq up until the surge was justified for that very reason (no joke).
 
tomarin said:
If any one thing can be said of Dzheremi it is that he is an impartial seeker of the truth …
Click to expand...
How can anyone be an “impartial seeker of the truth” since he is biased toward finding the truth as opposed to falsehood?
 
hosemonkey said:
Then in all charity, we should endevour to send as many moslems as possible to heaven. I recommend small tactical nuclear weapons. In all seriousness, Islam is a much greater threat to the world than Nazism or Communism ever was and should be eradicated with much greater vigor.
Click to expand...
Where’s the evidence it’s a greater threat than the Nazi’s or the Soviets? I think most people would think that’s ridiculously overstated.

And I hope you do have evidence, because you’re advocating genocide, which is about the worst crime against humanity that exists.
 
sedonaman said:
How can anyone be an “impartial seeker of the truth” since he is biased toward finding the truth as opposed to falsehood?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow you, sedonaman. Are you saying it’s not possible to seek out the truth (because the truth itself has an agenda or something)?
 
tomarin said:
I’m not sure I follow you, sedonaman. Are you saying it’s not possible to seek out the truth (because the truth itself has an agenda or something)?
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying it’s possible to seek falsehood [or error].
 
If US Could Create ‘Avatar’, It Could Fake 9/11 Attacks: Mahathir
In the Jakarta Globe, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has dug the boots in to the United Stes and Jews. The headline above tells part of the story.

The article says - -
The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that “there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby.”
Click to expand...
Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom," Mahathir said.
Click to expand...
“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world.”
Click to expand...
This lunatic was speaking at a pro-Palestinian conference. No doubt he has shares in a company that makes vests…😦
 
John21652 said:
…

The article says - -
The former premier also blamed Jews for hindering progress in US foreign policy. Voicing his disappointment that Barack Obama had not yet ended the war in Afghanistan or closed the US terror detention center at Guantanamo, he explained that “there are forces in the United States which prevent the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby.”
Click to expand...
Of course, “progress in US foreign policy” undoubtedly means cutting ties with Israel. The Muslims are making the classic mistake that Hitler made … trying to eradicate the Jews. The Jews are God’s chosen people, and you don’t mess with God’s chosen people.
Click to expand...
 
One thing very sad is how the Palestinian Christians are now numbering about 600,000 and trying to get out…
 
sedonaman said:
Of course, “progress in US foreign policy” undoubtedly means cutting ties with Israel. The Muslims are making the classic mistake that Hitler made … trying to eradicate the Jews. The Jews are God’s chosen people, and you don’t mess with God’s chosen people.
Click to expand...
We can either keep thinking in these sort of irrational terms (and allow the religious partisans in the west bank e.g. the Jewish settlors and radicalized Palestinians, to continue driving policy); or we can promote rational dialog apart from all this religious nonsense. When we (the supposed leader of the free world) put a religious face on this whole thing, we only inflame the issue and make it more irretractable.

It’s time for us to put our enlightenment thinker cap back on 😉
 
bridgeforsale,

This religious nonsense and the violence associated with it is more of ancient fratricide and rivalry…

Thus you are dealing with raw passions and lusts for power and control and I read some part of the Bible…in the Old Testament…Joel?..Hosea…a Jewish girl thought they were now at that part of fulfillment…the destruction of Gaza…Ashkelon…others…you feed off of violence, you teach your toddlers hatred and destruction, it eventually comes back to you, and there are Muslim Arabs who would prefer to live under Israeli rule than this self-destructive madness…they can’t say anything or face public and violent execution.

Those who live by the sword will die from it. Ancient Fratricide. Cain vs Abel…Abel who offered the best of everything to God vs. Cain who was jealous and gave the least…lying and killing…

(And considering your last inferences to the dangerous thinking of religion, I came across a 2006 National Geographic regarding the 20th century…how many countries practiced genocide, pogroms…I read a small article in the Seattle Times in the late 80’s that if the Soviet Communists had overtaken America, they already had their targeted population for extermination…and it included 30 million orthodox ( I assume Roman) Catholics.

Back to the article, of these many countries–the Great Satan and Enemy of the World-- America…and to the lesser, and most of the former Christian countries-- were not listed except Nazi Germany responsible for 11 million deaths…there were 71 million people who died in the name of the state…gotta watch out for the state! Catholicism upholds the sanctity of human life, and during the Nazi purgation of the Jews, Albert Einstein said it was only the Catholic Church who was working to defend the Jews…wonder how the Church changed after being so bad and murderous for so long…)
 
bridgeforsale said:
We can either keep thinking in these sort of irrational terms … or we can promote rational dialog … It’s time for us to put our enlightenment thinker cap back on.
Click to expand...
*Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds. – Winston Churchill

Our enemies are worms; I saw them at Munich. – Adolf Hitler

Everything would have worked fine if only Hitler had kept his promises. – Neville Chamberlain

Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided. – Sen. William Borah, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something; we are fighting to eliminate you.” – Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezb’allah.*

It’s you enlightenment folks who are irrational. You are nothing but appeasers. Here’s why: The “dialog” you value so much pre-supposes that there are leaders of good will on both sides who want to solve an honest problem. First, despots are not people of good will; second, the problems are almost never honest and always caused by despots themselves who are greedy for power. It was “dialog” that got the world into WW-II. If France had gone in and beat the you-know-what out of Hitler’s army the moment it entered the demilitarized zone, the larger war would have been prevented, because despots recognize only the “dialog” of force.

After reviewing the history of appeasement, you should have detected the following pattern:

a. Agreement
b. Despot repudiates agreement
c. Despot starts violating agreement, demands more
d. “Crisis” fomented by Despot who blames opposition [his Appeasers]
e. Concessions through “rational dialog” by Appeasers who promote that “dialog”
f. Despot repeats b through d as necessary

“Dialog” is nothing more than negotiating, and to negotiate successfully, one must be willing to give up something the other wants, an oft-neglected requirement; and important to note here is that what the Despot brings to the table is not really his at all! He has already taken something from the rest (peace); and, operating from a position of weakness, seeks something in exchange for the return of what he stole; and here is where the Appeasers make their first big mistake: by agreeing to negotiate under such (perhaps subconscious) assumptions, they have virtually validated his position. Having the position of strength of “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable” thrust upon him, the Despot then is only too willing to accept it. Then it is only a matter of BARGAINING as to what the Despot is willing to accept and what the Appeasers are willing to concede. From there, they are usually reduced to such a subordinate position that they can only sheepishly ask questions like, “Do the peasants get to keep their cows?” and hope that the current demands are the last the Despot will make. Once again the powerful will have surrendered their position of strength, their only advantage.

Those experienced in bargaining know that if a “buyer” offers X, he is usually willing to pay X plus Y. The only question is, what is Y? Once concession X has been agreed to by the victims of this extortion and blackmail, it is a simple matter for the Despot to lie low for a while until things quiet down before proceeding with his plan for more power and repeating the above process of “crisis”/ negotiation in order to extract Y (upping the price for peace); and once the process is renewed, the previous X + Y becomes the new X in his search for a new Y.

At this point, the Appeasers, all considering themselves seasoned statesmen and apparently convinced they can solve all mankind’s problems, have so much invested in this process that their own egos prevent them from admitting they’ve been had (by an uneducated, upstart son-of-a-peasant at that!). And so continues a desperate attempt to make negotiation work even at a cost agreed to what is far beyond that originally imagined, with the Appeasers ceding concession after concession, and with each one a little more power, to the Despot until there is no more Y for the Appeasers to give without exhausting whatever political capital they might have remaining in the eyes of their constituents and thus endangering their own careers.

Once the Despot has extracted the last Y willingly conceded, his madness having been unleashed by the spineless Appeasers and being convinced of his own position of power, he is still not through and has one option left: taking it by military force. The inevitable result is,

**g. All-out war, **

a war that could have easily been prevented in the beginning at relatively low cost to both sides in both dollars and human lives by NOT ceding anything in the hopes that the Despot will go away (he won’t, for he is a blackmailer), but rather letting the Despot know in no uncertain terms that military force WILL be used if compliance to the letter is not accomplished immediately and that there will be no further concessions since the current agreement (usually the point of contention) contains them all. Constituents who are tempted to agree to more should be made aware that that amounts to paying blackmail, and that they are endangering a whole younger generation that will bear the greatest hardships of an all-out war, not the Appeasers who never seem to pay a price in blood whatsoever.

We can no longer allow tyrannical regimes to get away with violating their agreements, for though such violation, despite its being a prima facie justification for military action, might for several reasons have been allowed to slide in the past, in the post-9/11 world it is too potentially dangerous to permit. Right order and the future peace of the world demand that gangster nations not be permitted to do mass-murder with impunity and that they be taught a lesson here and now.
 
Right now, CAIR in the USA is now demanding we allow access of their great scholars – radical Muslim scholars…and the Muslim Brotherhood has just elected a new Badee…another radical…

We should not being having radical Islam to have the clout it is gaining in our country…they are not here for sincere dialogue but for eventual takeover…

The Muslim Brotherhood was in collusion with the Nazis in 1922…
 
How is that possible, KathleenGee, when the MB was not founded until 1928? :confused:
 
KathleenGee said:
…
We should not being having radical Islam to have the clout it is gaining in our country…they are not here for sincere dialogue but for eventual takeover…
…
Click to expand...
To see how far they have infiltrated our government, see The Muslim Mafia, a book based on CAIR’s own documents.
 
sedonaman said:
*Madness, once unleashed, knows no bounds. – Winston Churchill

Our enemies are worms; I saw them at Munich. – Adolf Hitler

Everything would have worked fine if only Hitler had kept his promises. – Neville Chamberlain

Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided. – Sen. William Borah, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland

“We are not fighting so that you will offer us something; we are fighting to eliminate you.” – Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezb’allah.*

It’s you enlightenment folks who are irrational. You are nothing but appeasers. Here’s why: The “dialog” you value so much pre-supposes that there are leaders of good will on both sides who want to solve an honest problem. First, despots are not people of good will; second, the problems are almost never honest and always caused by despots themselves who are greedy for power. It was “dialog” that got the world into WW-II. If France had gone in and beat the you-know-what out of Hitler’s army the moment it entered the demilitarized zone, the larger war would have been prevented, because despots recognize only the “dialog” of force.
Click to expand...
Let me explain something, I’m a reserve soldier whose served in Iraq, so don’t call me an appeaser (unless you’ve done something more than fester on your couch while saps like me did the heavy lifting). As for the substance of what you’re saying, you didn’t even get that right. Winston Churchill (a personal favorite of mine) was an agnostic who identified strongly with the enlightenment thinkers. So there is no logical high ground for you.
“Dialog” is nothing more than negotiating, and to negotiate successfully, one must be willing to give up something the other wants, an oft-neglected requirement; and important to note here is that what the Despot brings to the table is not really his at all! He has already taken something from the rest (peace); and, operating from a position of weakness, seeks something in exchange for the return of what he stole; and here is where the Appeasers make their first big mistake: by agreeing to negotiate under such (perhaps subconscious) assumptions, they have virtually validated his position. Having the position of strength of “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable” thrust upon him, the Despot then is only too willing to accept it. Then it is only a matter of BARGAINING as to what the Despot is willing to accept and what the Appeasers are willing to concede. From there, they are usually reduced to such a subordinate position that they can only sheepishly ask questions like, “Do the peasants get to keep their cows?” and hope that the current demands are the last the Despot will make. Once again the powerful will have surrendered their position of strength, their only advantage.
Click to expand...
ooo, wow, enlightening :rolleyes:
We can no longer allow tyrannical regimes to get away with violating
Click to expand...
I agree … and after we finish off Islam, I say the next intellectual battle should be against your church.
 
KathleenGee said:
bridgeforsale,

This religious nonsense and the violence associated with it is more of ancient fratricide and rivalry…

Thus you are dealing with raw passions and lusts for power and control and I read some part of the Bible…in the Old Testament…Joel?..Hosea…a Jewish girl thought they were now at that part of fulfillment…the destruction of Gaza…Ashkelon…others…you feed off of violence, you teach your toddlers hatred and destruction, it eventually comes back to you, and there are Muslim Arabs who would prefer to live under Israeli rule than this self-destructive madness…they can’t say anything or face public and violent execution.
Click to expand...
The point is I see no compelling reason why we should care. Israel isn’t our problem (and frankly if the parties are inevitably going to fight a war of attrition, then why prolong it through our intervention). The Arabs wouldn’t stand a chance anyway.

But siding with the most conservative elements in Israel is a mistake. We shouldn’t pick sides, and we should let events flow naturally. I’m sick of dealing with these desert tribal nomands, and the desert religions these idiots invented.
 
I am an old woman…I read Roy Shoeman’s book about 4 years ago…I used to have a fairly good memory…He was speaking of the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt, and yes, they were in collusion with the Nazis as well…'22 I thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top