Judging Modern Muslim Nations

[ralphinal]

On another thread, I made the statement that I judge modern nations by modern standards. Therefore, a nation today that does not allow freedom of religion or assembly or the press, within limits for security, are problematic. By my standards, most Muslim nations are backwards and not modern.

Another poster mentioned that I hold to this thought because I do not want to dig up the past wrongs of Christianity. This is untrue. In reality, I hold to it as an example. We outgrew the mentality that you kill anyone that disagrees. We do not kill those who offend us.

Muslims love to throw the whole “We’re 600 years younger” whenever anyone mentions women’s rights or anything like that. Fine. Live like it then. No more cars or electricity. No more modern medical care. If you want to act like it is 1408, live like it too. Let us have the oil in exchange for sheep or horses or whatever, as you have no need for it.

OR

Allow people basic human rights. Allow freedom of thought and worship. Allow people to voice disagreements.

OR

Please be quite about how peaceful and accepting Islam is. Obviously, it is like that on paper and has failed miserably in application.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

On another thread, I made the statement that I judge modern nations by modern standards.

What do you mean by modern standards?

Therefore, a nation today that does not allow freedom of religion or assembly or the press, within limits for security, are problematic. By my standards, most Muslim nations are backwards and not modern.

That’s far to vague, “within limits of security” what exactly does that mean, furthermore what do you mean by “Muslim” nations, it’s rediculiously unscientific and sloppy to lump Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bosnia, and Pakistan all in one group, all are “Muslim” nations.

Another poster mentioned that I hold to this thought because I do not want to dig up the past wrongs of Christianity. This is untrue. In reality, I hold to it as an example. We outgrew the mentality that you kill anyone that disagrees. We do not kill those who offend us.

That’s because they are Western Secular post-Christian nations, they are certianly not “Christian” in the same sense middleeastern nations are “Muslim”

Your reasoning seems to have some semblence of sanity behind it because you have lumped all Muslims nations into one non-distinct bunch.

Muslims love to throw the whole “We’re 600 years younger” whenever anyone mentions women’s rights or anything like that.

Fine. Live like it then. No more cars or electricity. No more modern medical care. If you want to act like it is 1408, live like it too. Let us have the oil in exchange for sheep or horses or whatever, as you have no need for it.

That’s really not the argument, Culturally Christian nations have a vastly different history, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire banned the printing press which had a massive impact on the socioties, The cultural and intelectual revolution of the West came as the power of the Church and Christendome began to decline.

Perhapse, rather than slopply lumping all Muslim nationms together and pointing to this as the source of their problems we can look to European Colonialism, let’s look at another regions which also have groosly deficient individual and civil liberties, corrupt inefficient political systems etc, such as Africa, India, and much of South East Asia, these issues are strictly linked in their common experience as being subjugated under European Colonialism

Moreover you have the inconvient fact that After the Second world war America has supported and defended numerous opressive regimes in the middle east, it helped us a great deal but probably wasen’t wonderful for the people in those nations.

OR

Allow people basic human rights. Allow freedom of thought and worship. Allow people to voice disagreements.

OR

Well that’s easy enough

Please be quite about how peaceful and accepting Islam is. Obviously, it is like that on paper and has failed miserably in application.

This is rediculious, how in the world do you take a vastly different region with a complex history and reduce it’s problems to a single minded fixation on Islam?

 

[paarsurrey]

Allow people basic human rights. Allow freedom of thought and worship. Allow people to voice disagreements.

Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

I agree with you that Muslim rulers should “Allow people basic human rights. Allow freedom of thought and worship. Allow people to voice disagreements” and they are no good if they don’t allow such basic things. For humanity’s sake please do it, Islam enjoins to provide all these things.

Thanks

 

[Reuben_J]

The OP has valid point insofar that there is such thing as Islamic government which is based on Islamic laws which supposedly came from Allah. Any government on earth who claim to base its adminstration on these laws therefore can be judged as Islamic government.

This here lies the rub - many Muslims themselves don’t like what they see in the present available Islamic governments today. They sort of looking for an utopiaic and ideal Islamic government that represents true Islam.

Being non-Muslim, I am puzzled by this because I have yet to see an ideal Islamic government in the past and also at present. We are told the ideal ones were during the four Caliphates immediately after Mohammad. I said fine, show me the ideal in these governments. Alas, among other things we hear, three of the four caliphs were murdered in governmental and palace intrugues and treachery. Did not show much ideal there, did they?

I believe that the so-called Islamic laws that are supposed to run a government were actually man-made, compiled and composed by Mohammad and perhaps a few of his confidants. I am sure Muslims would not like the usage of such words but looking back at Mohammad’s time, he was certainly a political person.

The sad fact was that the laws are proclaimed to be from God and thus associated with divinity which cannot be changed to suit the passage of times. So you would still cut off the hands and legs of criminals, stone those committing adulteries and perhaps execute apostates.

The Sharia is actually a book of Mohammad just like Das Capital for Marx or the Red Book for Mao. There is no way that man can become an executor of God’s judgement. Only God can decide who is sinful and mete out the appropriate punishment. Relegated to men, the laws of God would certainly be abused, men being men.

Reuben.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

The OP has valid point insofar that there is such thing as Islamic government which is based on Islamic laws which supposedly came from Allah. Any government on earth who claim to base its adminstration on these laws therefore can be judged as Islamic government.

No, it can be judged some variant of Theocracy, saying it is an “Islamic” government seems to imply that it validly impliments law, which is absolutly not something that can be asserted as an objective fact

This here lies the rub - many Muslims themselves don’t like what they see in the present available Islamic governments today. They sort of looking for an utopiaic and ideal Islamic government that represents true Islam.

alrighty

Being non-Muslim, I am puzzled by this because I have yet to see an ideal Islamic government in the past and also at present.

why is that puzzling?

We are told the ideal ones were during the four Caliphates immediately after Mohammad.

By whome?

I said fine, show me the ideal in these governments. Alas, among other things we hear, three of the four caliphs were murdered in governmental and palace intrugues and treachery. Did not show much ideal there, did they?

alright

I believe that the so-called Islamic laws that are supposed to run a government were actually man-made

I wasen’t aware that Muslim scholars were in agreament even over the fact that Islamic laws were supposed to be the absolute law of the land, I think most scholars agrea that laws of a state should not be immoral, I think most Christians would agrea with that, hence the whole pro-life movement

compiled and composed by Mohammad and perhaps a few of his confidants. I am sure Muslims would not like the usage of such words but looking back at Mohammad’s time, he was certainly a political person.

I don’t think there is any evidence for that

The sad fact was that the laws are proclaimed to be from God and thus associated with divinity which cannot be changed to suit the passage of times.

Wait now, which laws?

So you would still cut off the hands and legs of criminals, stone those committing adulteries and perhaps execute apostates.

wait now again, I think you are overstepping again.

Are you talking about all Muslims, Muslim scripture, the peasants of Muslim government, what?

The Sharia is actually a book of Mohammad just like Das Capital for Marx or the Red Book for Mao. There is no way that man can become an executor of God’s judgement. Only God can decide who is sinful and mete out the appropriate punishment. Relegated to men, the laws of God would certainly be abused, men being men.

Reuben.

alrighty

 

[ralphinal]

Ivan,

You have raised some excellent points.

Within the limits of security is what we have within the United State: no shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child molestation is not allowed within a religion. I can lump all of the Muslim nations in together because they all seem all too happy to execute people for crimes against Islam, such as apostacy, and they have no or limited freedom of worship.

There are other areas with bad human rights issues. However, none of them are holding up their form of thought as a superior form to ours.

Perhaps if i give you an example you can see where I am coming from. Take the two most glaring examples of anti-women violence found today in some Muslim nations: honor killings and female genital mutilation. Now Muslims argue that these are cultural and not a part of Islam. However, Muslim governments have light or no punishments for them and have not stopped them at all. Now, that implies to me a tacit allowence of them. So, is the failure within Islam towards women or is the failure within Islam in changing a culture?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Ivan,

You have raised some excellent points.

Within the limits of security is what we have within the United State:

I don’t think that is fair at all, the US is distinct, you haven’t given a real strict definition but smply imposed our constitutional provisions on other nations without any real explination as to why this would work for them.

Germany certianly, by that plan, has much more strict limitations on freedom of speach. Rather than simply assuming that they ought to make themselves like us we look at their history and unique situation, they make it a law to even deney that the Holocaust occured, for Americans this is abhorant, but clearly it makes sense in Germany.

no shouting fire in a crowded theatre, child molestation is not allowed within a religion.

Alright

I can lump all of the Muslim nations in together because they all seem all too happy to execute people for crimes against Islam, such as apostacy, and they have no or limited freedom of worship.

Really? Bosnia, Albania, Indonesia, Kosovo, Turkey?

All of these are Muslim nations, not one of them fits your definition, is Egypt in any was compariabe in extreamity as Saudi Arabia? I don’t think so.

You are certianly free to lump all Muslim nations together, but your points really can’t be taken seriously if you do.

There are other areas with bad human rights issues. However, none of them are holding up their form of thought as a superior form to ours.

We tend to hold ourselves superior to all other nations, yet there are absolutly other nations with vastely superior human rights records

Perhaps if i give you an example you can see where I am coming from. Take the two most glaring examples of anti-women violence found today in some Muslim nations: honor killings and female genital mutilation. Now Muslims argue that these are cultural and not a part of Islam. However, Muslim governments have light or no punishments for them and have not stopped them at all.

It IS part of the culture, female circumcision is not limited to Muslim famlies in Africa, nor are honor killings, you claim that the Muslim countries turn a blind eye, and some do, others like Turkey, do not, less that 50 years ago Southern states turned a blind eye if a black man was castrated by the Ku Klux Klan for dateing a white woman.

Said Arabia has an abhorant human rights record, hwever who has propped up, funded, armed, and defended the regime? That dosen’t excuse them, but let’s look at ourselves a little in these problems in there, now I am not aware of a great deal of honor killings in Kuwait, certianly not the urban regions.

Massing vastely different cultures, countries into one indistinct homogenous mass is just silly, that’s like massing all of the America’s.

Now, that implies to me a tacit allowence of them. So, is the failure within Islam towards women or is the failure within Islam in changing a culture?

This is getting rediculious.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think that is fair at all, the US is distinct, you haven’t given a real strict definition but smply imposed our constitutional provisions on other nations without any real explination as to why this would work for them.

CAn you think of a form of government that has allowed for more diversity than ours?

Germany certianly, by that plan, has much more strict limitations on freedom of speach. Rather than simply assuming that they ought to make themselves like us we look at their history and unique situation, they make it a law to even deney that the Holocaust occured, for Americans this is abhorant, but clearly it makes sense in Germany.

And I find the attidute in Germany offensive. One cannot deny the past forever. I have no issue with Germany banning the Nazi flag, and other such limitations, but the fact that they will not acknowledge their mistakes is problematic. It would be like the US passing laws that said the atricities against Native Americans cannot be taught or discussed.

Really? Bosnia, Albania, Indonesia, Kosovo, Turkey?

All of these are Muslim nations, not one of them fits your definition, is Egypt in any was compariabe in extreamity as Saudi Arabia? I don’t think so.

True, I should say fundamentalist Islamic goverments. Although there is evidence that Indonisia is one of the nations that allows Muslim Mobs to enforce the Islam-only mentality.

You are certianly free to lump all Muslim nations together, but your points really can’t be taken seriously if you do.

So I refine the question to say “Fundamentalist Islamic governments.”

We tend to hold ourselves superior to all other nations, yet there are absolutly other nations with vastely superior human rights records

Perhaps, and most of those keep their mouths shut and depend on us for help when the stuff hits the fan in other countries.

It IS part of the culture, female circumcision is not limited to Muslim famlies in Africa, nor are honor killings, you claim that the Muslim countries turn a blind eye, and some do, others like Turkey, do not, less that 50 years ago Southern states turned a blind eye if a black man was castrated by the Ku Klux Klan for dateing a white woman.

You know, Turkey should be studied. Why are they so different in mentality? Is it because they have a true sense of national identity, where most other Middle Eastern Muslim countries have only existed since WWII, and some are forced creations at that? Turks seem to see themselves as Turks first and Muslims second.

True, not all Muslim nations have either example as cultural norms, but where they exist, they seem to bu unphased by the government. I know all about US history in the South. The fact is, we have grown past it. Check the stats. There have been more hate crimes in the North since 1970 then here. In fact, we are way down the list now. My point stands that we out grew the hatred.

Said Arabia has an abhorant human rights record, hwever who has propped up, funded, armed, and defended the regime? That dosen’t excuse them, but let’s look at ourselves a little in these problems in there, now I am not aware of a great deal of honor killings in Kuwait, certianly not the urban regions.

Oh, I have all kinds of issues with our involvement in Saudi Arabia.

Massing vastely different cultures, countries into one indistinct homogenous mass is just silly, that’s like massing all of the America’s.

Perhaps. But, there is a common thread: Islam. All of these nations have some level of Islamic Fundamentalism. All of these nations have some number of people who feel that the government based on Shiara law is inherently superior to any other form. We’ve had American posters on this forum say that the Constitution should be replaced with Shiara law for no reason other than they are Muslim.

This is getting rediculious.

Maybe.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

CAn you think of a form of government that has allowed for more diversity than ours?

Not really, we have admiriably atrong free speech protections, however that does not imply that all governments ought to have our form of government.

And I find the attidute in Germany offensive. One cannot deny the past forever. I have no issue with Germany banning the Nazi flag, and other such limitations, but the fact that they will not acknowledge their mistakes is problematic. It would be like the US passing laws that said the atricities against Native Americans cannot be taught or discussed.

No, I said they outlawed deneying the Holocaust, probably something necessary for them given their past, not for us.

True, I should say fundamentalist Islamic goverments. Although there is evidence that Indonisia is one of the nations that allows Muslim Mobs to enforce the Islam-only mentality.

But how do you define that?

give an example, would Iraq be such a government, how about Iran, what about Saudi Arabia?

So I refine the question to say “Fundamentalist Islamic governments.”

Alright, but you need to give concrete examples and qualifications, Iraq’s government forbids any law that contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam, Iran has the Supreme Leader but also has Republican elements as well, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, now all of these could be refered to as some sort of Islamic theocracy, yet they are vastly different countries, and lumping them together seems silly

Perhaps, and most of those keep their mouths shut and depend on us for help when the stuff hits the fan in other countries.[/QUITE]

Well that’s a bit presumptisious but what does that have to do with th price of tea in China?

You know, Turkey should be studied. Why are they so different in mentality? Is it because they have a true sense of national identity, where most other Middle Eastern Muslim countries have only existed since WWII, and some are forced creations at that? Turks seem to see themselves as Turks first and Muslims second.

They are different because after WWI they remained free from European and American Colonialism, and were controled by an extream secularist.

Now Turkey IS an interesting case, you point to Islam, yet what seperate Turkey from other countries in the region, most noteable, is not that they have a different religion, but that they were never a colonial teriroty of Western Powers, now why don’t you bring this up with your “talk” of Muslim nations? Certianly Turkey is not so different only because it was never a territory, but this is one of the many factors that get excluded when you single mindedly focus in on Islam.

True, not all Muslim nations have either example as cultural norms, but where they exist, they seem to bu unphased by the government. I know all about US history in the South. The fact is, we have grown past it. Check the stats. There have been more hate crimes in the North since 1970 then here. In fact, we are way down the list now. My point stands that we out grew the hatred.

We did not outgrow it, it was forced upon the South, there is a reasone we are now republican states and not democrats

Oh, I have all kinds of issues with our involvement in Saudi Arabia.

alrighty

Perhaps. But, there is a common thread: Islam.

Correct, that is one of ***numerous *** common threads.

All of these nations have some level of Islamic Fundamentalism. All of these nations have some number of people who feel that the government based on Shiara law is inherently superior to any other form.

I’m sorry, does the United States have or not have a large segment of the population that beleives that a government based on Christianity is inherently superior to any form of government.

Pat Robinson, Jerry Farwell, Ted Haggard?

Dover school trials?

We’ve had American posters on this forum say that the Constitution should be replaced with Shiara law for no reason other than they are Muslim.

alright?

So?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Hi

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.

I agree with you that Muslim rulers should “Allow people basic human rights. Allow freedom of thought and worship. Allow people to voice disagreements” and they are no good if they don’t allow such basic things. For humanity’s sake please do it, Islam enjoins to provide all these things.

Thanks

When there is a Christian cathedral in Mecca, I’ll believe that Islam supports and provides for freedom of thought and worship.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

When there is a Christian cathedral in Mecca, I’ll believe that Islam supports and provides for freedom of thought and worship.

Excuse me?

How many Mosqu’s are in Vatican city?

 

[R_not]

Excuse me?

How many Mosqu’s are in Vatican city?

Well, as usual the Catholics gave one of their buildings to the muslims in Rome which I found disgusting since the muslims have NEVER done the same in return, but instead destroy or convert the churches or temples into mosques. We saw muslim behavior in our church in Jerusalem when they fouled it with their feces and urine. They do the same wherever they have a predominant foothold.

The muslim’s goals in Rome are the same as we see in every place they migrate to - become the predominant ones and take over and establish sharia law.

archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=1074

Their tactics range from immigration, uncontrolled birth rates, and conversions. Then when they have sufficient numbers they start demands, then violence, etc.

They gain a foothold by claiming to be a ‘religion’, but what we don’t realize is that islam is a political movement that uses ‘religion’ as a front to gain a foothold into our countries and take advantage of all the rights we, and others in the past, give a religion. No one suspects that islam could be so dangerous since the first immigrants claim to be so peaceful and benign. and after the violence starts - the same things happen - the muslims wail that they are the victims. Well, it is becoming obvious what they do to us more and more.

 

[bpbasilphx]

((
How many Mosqu’s are in Vatican city?((

There’s a mosque in Rome.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Even during the Middle Ages, Catholics were very civilized and behaved better than the Muslims of today.

Islamic terrorism is not a modern phenomenon. It goes way back to the days of Mohammed and the later Middle Ages. Mohammeds “holy” example of raiding helpless trade caravans and launching guerilla raids on civilian communities continued on after his death.

Europe was always under Islamic attack. The bus and train bombings of today do not compare to the injustices suffered by the Europeans of old at the hands of Islamic savages. When the Muslims were not raiding Europe itself and setting Churches ablaze, they were directing their wrath at the Christians in the Holy Land. Christians living in the Holy Land were routinely massacred, tortured, raped, and robbed by the local Muslims. Blessed Pope Urban II put his foot down and rallied the brave men of Christendom in the Holy Crusades, which fought the Islamic beasts on their own turf. The Holy Crusades were really the first war against terrorism.

 

[MugenOne]

Amen!

I couldn’t agree more.

Even during the Middle Ages, Catholics were very civilized and behaved better than the Muslims of today.

Islamic terrorism is not a modern phenomenon. It goes way back to the days of Mohammed and the later Middle Ages. Mohammeds “holy” example of raiding helpless trade caravans and launching guerilla raids on civilian communities continued on after his death.

Europe was always under Islamic attack. The bus and train bombings of today do not compare to the injustices suffered by the Europeans of old at the hands of Islamic savages. When the Muslims were not raiding Europe itself and setting Churches ablaze, they were directing their wrath at the Christians in the Holy Land. Christians living in the Holy Land were routinely massacred, tortured, raped, and robbed by the local Muslims. Blessed Pope Urban II put his foot down and rallied the brave men of Christendom in the Holy Crusades, which fought the Islamic beasts on their own turf. The Holy Crusades were really the first war against terrorism.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Well, as usual the Catholics gave one of their buildings to the muslims in Rome which I found disgusting since the muslims have NEVER done the same in return, but instead destroy or convert the churches or temples into mosques. We saw muslim behavior in our church in Jerusalem when they fouled it with their feces and urine. They do the same wherever they have a predominant foothold.

Wait, what Catholics gave a building to Muslims in Rome,

The muslim’s goals in Rome are the same as we see in every place they migrate to - become the predominant ones and take over and establish sharia law.

Alright, so it has nothing to do with high unemployment and stagnation in the middle east, the migration is all a plot to gain control of Europe.

Alrighty

Their tactics range from immigration, uncontrolled birth rates, and conversions. Then when they have sufficient numbers they start demands, then violence, etc.

They gain a foothold by claiming to be a ‘religion’, but what we don’t realize is that islam is a political movement that uses ‘religion’ as a front to gain a foothold into our countries and take advantage of all the rights we, and others in the past, give a religion. No one suspects that islam could be so dangerous since the first immigrants claim to be so peaceful and benign. and after the violence starts - the same things happen - the muslims wail that they are the victims. Well, it is becoming obvious what they do to us more and more.

What is obvious is how rediculious this is.

Take off the tin foil hat and tke a nice long walk outside

 

[IvanKaramozov]

((
How many Mosqu’s are in Vatican city?((

There’s a mosque in Rome.

Rome is the capital of Itally, a secular western democracy, I’m asking about Vatican City

 

[R_not]

Europe was always under Islamic attack. The bus and train bombings of today do not compare to the injustices suffered by the Europeans of old at the hands of Islamic savages. When the Muslims were not raiding Europe itself and setting Churches ablaze, they were directing their wrath at the Christians in the Holy Land. Christians living in the Holy Land were routinely massacred, tortured, raped, and robbed by the local Muslims. Blessed Pope Urban II put his foot down and rallied the brave men of Christendom in the Holy Crusades, which fought the Islamic beasts on their own turf. The Holy Crusades were really the first war against terrorism.

Currently, Europe is again under islamic attack. There is a difference though and it is the same sort of attack that we are under.

their tactics have changed. It starts with immigration, uncontrolled birth rates (and our immigration laws, and Europes, speed it up since we allow them to bring in hundreds of their relatives - and in many cases their extra brides), and then the demands start, the violence ensues and if the ‘eye’ turns on them - they wail they are the victims but they are not - they are the aggressors.

Europe has allowed their violence against their citizens go unchallenged. The muslims live in ghettos - in groups - and the police/politicians are afraid of them. And right now, there has been more than 2 weeks of riots - and the media doesn’t even state it accurately. our own media doesn’t even report it. But, more importantly they do not say who the rioters are - they call them Asians, or other things, ‘disaffected youth’, etc. Our own media does the same thing. All because muslim nations bully the media (basically other muslim nations arrogantly controlling OUR societies by their threats of violence and economic daliances)

Europe has also been in an agreement with the muslims in the Middle East. Basically, they signed an agreement to take the side of the Arabs over the Israelis and for that the Arabs will cut them favors in business dealings. But, the Europeans are the losers - they have allowed the massive amounts of immigrants of which the majority are on welfare move in.

And what they bring is sharia law, polygamy, ‘honor killings’, clitorectomies, etc. With polygamy in Western countries proving to be devastating - their 4-6 kids per wife versus the 1-2, or zero, birth rate of the European. And the muslim male can divorce and remarry many times so it actually proves that they have more than 4 wives. And they sit and draw welfare to support their nasty sexual behaviors. (I find it disgusting that the women just sit home and breed)

and believe me - they bring it here too. It is also happening in Canada and the muslims have started their infiltration of s. Ameria too.

All this is on the web if you want to do the searches for yourself. jihadwatch.org is a very good site, also: frontpagemag.com and jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch

A good book to read is ‘A Never Ending War’ by Michael Cappi. It is eye opening.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Even during the Middle Ages, Catholics were very civilized and behaved better than the Muslims of today.

you know what else, the Jews were always good with money, much better than the black, who were never good at math(still arn’t)O.O

Oh wait, Perhapse biggotry and rediculious generalizations are rediculious

Middle Age Catholics were civilised? 30 years war?

Islamic terrorism is not a modern phenomenon. It goes way back to the days of Mohammed and the later Middle Ages. Mohammeds “holy” example of raiding helpless trade caravans and launching guerilla raids on civilian communities continued on after his death.

Europe was always under Islamic attack. The bus and train bombings of today do not compare to the injustices suffered by the Europeans of old at the hands of Islamic savages. When the Muslims were not raiding Europe itself and setting Churches ablaze, they were directing their wrath at the Christians in the Holy Land. Christians living in the Holy Land were routinely massacred, tortured, raped, and robbed by the local Muslims. Blessed Pope Urban II put his foot down and rallied the brave men of Christendom in the Holy Crusades, which fought the Islamic beasts on their own turf. The Holy Crusades were really the first war against terrorism.

right

 

[R_not]

Wait, what Catholics gave a building to Muslims in Rome,

Alright, so it has nothing to do with high unemployment and stagnation in the middle east, the migration is all a plot to gain control of Europe.

Alrighty

What is obvious is how rediculious this is.

Take off the tin foil hat and tke a nice long walk outside

So, now you are unable to click on a website? Go do the searches for yourself.

As for the rest - you think I am off? Not so fast. Take a good look at Europe - the violence that is ensuing from muslims and their immigration and birth rates soaring. And they sit like pigs gobbling up the welfare checks while breeding like pigs.

On page #2 post #18 read my post of the muslim tactics in our land. Take note of a book that I suggested to read. Some more books are ‘Eurasia’, ‘While Europe Slept’, and ‘Menace in Europe’.

I think that the one who is in lala land is you. In fact, we call it ‘the head up thy butt’ syndrome.

“What Accounts For The Almost Psychotic Aversion To Knowledge About Islam?”

sheikyermami.com/2007/10/30/%e2%80%9cwhat-accounts-for-the-almost-psychotic-aversion-to-knowledge-about-islam%e2%80%9d/

Now, what could be your problem is that I just sniffed out another muslim on the Catholic website. Gee, I wonder why there are so many muslims on a Catholic website? From my experiences is that they practice their taqiyya (deception about islam and in some cases their denial of being muslims so as to not be pinned down any further) in order to try to convince us that islam is so ‘peaceful’ and to continually deny the facts of what islam is all about.

muslims are so concerned about their image - and do nothing about the masses of ‘moderates’ that do violence against non-muslims just because they are non-muslims.

here is the violence that is islam in our times. Islamic terror attacks:
thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks