The Pyromaniacs
Guest Houstonmod said:
But the very nature of those posts, (John) portrays himself as a bigot. I do not throw that word around very often but maybe it's time to step up and call him out for starting "this fire".
Don't look at me, Houston.
I didn't start it.
posted by John | 5:10 AM
36 Comments:
While this reply probably belongs in the now encyclopedia lenght CvsM Part III post I'm posting here as there is less traffic.
John, any of my concerns around your intolerance/racism are adequately adressed by you taking on Jihadists as opposed to Muslims. Its very clear *HERE* in these posts your intention is to go after *RADICAL* Islam. But when you post under CvsM you are painting all muslims with a pretty broad brush. Go after the Jihadists all you want. While I'm a pacifist by nature, I'm not gonna begrudge a person the right to call a murdering scumbag out for being a murdering scumbag. And I would hope my lefty brethren would understand the difference between a jihadist & a muslim.
"WE" do :)
Sanjay and Jeff, I am right with you two on this one.
To equate jihadists to all muslims is to equate klansmen to all christians. People who do that typically don't know a SINGLE muslim. Some jihadists know nothing about the Koran they just hate US or Israel and use Jihad as an excuse. Anyone who thinks all muslims are terrorists is nothing but a braindead racist; I'd be more than happy to take them for a ride in dearborne, MI to witness muslims going to mosques, schools, resteraunts just like everyoneelse. As much as republicus & kelly & I disagree on that much WE DO agree (I think).
Mr. Bargholz said:
"jihadists follow the koran's commandments to the letter; KKK goons do not follow Christian doctrine. They betray it."
That's right.
That's what I've been saying.
As un-PC as this sounds, the Quaran is indeed very much a war-manual.
The "good Muslims" constantly referred to I would assume read around that...
...which would make them bad Muslims as far as the Orthodox ones are concerned (and worthy of death).
Sorry, folks, that's just the way it is.
Again, THREE OPTIONS:
(1) Ignore it.
(2) Destroy it.
(3) Try to fix it.
The "antiwar" (or "dhimmi," lol) crowd subscibes to (1).
The Administration--and Republicus--to (3).
Unfortunately, it's very resistant to change. There are explicit commands to kill anyone who causes doubt.
But they should know that (2) is on the table, and if they pull another 9/11, they're getting it.
Sanjay, I'm just shaking my head man. Don't even bother with this guy, there is obviously a psychosis involved here that I want nothing to do with. Kinda like when you see a crazy ass person on the sidewalk in front of you, just cross the street and keep on moving. There is no reasoning with a paranoid delusional psychotic personality.
"Because my daddy didn't love me, because my daddy didn't love me".
And your not going to get backed up by John, from what I've seen, he's right there with this guy.
Sanjay, I've made my beliefs and positions quite clear.
Again, you can just read these older posts of mine out to see what I think of generic Muslims:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/tell-it-mr-usman-and-mr-ihsanoglu.html
And here:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/wafa-sultan.html
(note that Mrs. Sultan--a modern "moderate"-- has renounced Islam, precisely on the points I've argued--and received the obligatory death threats for doing so! She would agree with everything I've said).
And, for the umpteenth time, here:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/setback-in-war-on-terror-situation.html
Jeff the Genius said:
"Sanjay, I'm just shaking my head man."
OO! Jeff'th dithappointed!
I'm the one shaking my head, Jeff, in digust:
"And your not going to get backed up by John, from what I've seen, he's right there with this guy."
Right, in other words, "right there" with being: "Obviously psychotic," and "Kinda like when you see a crazy ass person on the sidewalk in front of you," and that there's "no reasoning with a paranoid delusional psychotic personality," because I, like Mr. Bargholz, am REALLY motivated by:
"Because my daddy didn't love me, because my daddy didn't love me".
Since you're not paranoid, delusional, and psychotic, Jeff, I'll just hang on to your every word about the federal governments cover-up--if not collusion--with UFO's, the CIA's hand in the JFK assassination, and, of course, the Vast, White-Wing, Christo-Fascist Conspiracy to destroy the African-Americans and homosexuals with AIDS, rape Third World countries of their natural resources, poison the environment, and exterminate the Muslims just so Cheney could build a house in Bel Air and Scwarzneeger can keep his Hummer chugging.
Idjoot.
John, in reading your posts you've said you aren't a fan of Militant Islam, Radical Islam, Jihadists and less inclined to have problems with the multitudes of progressive muslims who know how to seperate the violent interpretations of their religioun from the good parts of it. Did I miss something.
As to Jeff's comments about Jeff B. I have to agree, anyone advocating the eradication of believers of a particular faith is nuts. I'd say the same thing to someone who wants to eradicate christians, jews, hindus, etc.
Samurai, I find it interesting that the threat of international Islamic terrorism against the USA was, um, nonexistent before 1948.
Bhargholz, if this were twenty years ago, would you be writing about the menace of communism and the threat it had instead of Islam?
Did you support the 1999 NATO bombings of Christian Serbs as to benefit the Muslim Albanians and their official Islamic Terrorist group the KLA?
I think that the problem is not Islam, the problem is Muslims who use Islam as a shield for their clearly immoral behavior/ Muslims who are misled by clerics who use Islam as a shield for their immoralities.
Also, people, a problem in the USA is that the political elite are able to successfully define 'the enemy' in the mind of the rest of everybody, so now we are talking about Islam, but if this were 1989-1997 we would be talking about 'the war on drugs' and the crime problem of young black/Hispanic males and their street gangs.
If this were 1948-1988 we would be talking about the threat of international communism.
To me, that's a problem because the street gangs still exist and are still pushing weight off of every other street corner, Castro is still in power and the Maoist PRC is busy harvesting the organs of Falun gong captives while our president kisses PRC ass, and we, the people, are all the while focused on Islam. To me that’s a problem.
Problem with your logic there John is I am right and I stand proudly behind every word.
Bush is a prick, a criminal, and deserves to go to jail, as is evidenced on a nearly daily basis these days. One can despise somebody and still tell the truth, but it is awful hard to love someone as devoutly as you do and be objective towards them. You are blinded by a really wierd love towards this guy, and excuse every illegal act committed by him/them as justified because we are at "war". Seriously man, get some perspective, your words were not taken out of context, they were in order based on your response, and even after putting them with their accompanied transcript, they don't shine any better light on either of you.
And John(s), if either of you don't think you are radicals and talking insanity right now, well guys, you really need some help.
Sanjay:
Check this one out, too:
http://arlingtonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/western-intellectual-vs-islamist-shiek.html
Jeff said:
"Problem with your logic there John is I am right and I stand proudly behind every word."
You are wrong.
"Bush is a prick, a criminal, and deserves to go to jail, as is evidenced on a nearly daily basis these days."
lol
But NOT the Islamist!
"One can despise somebody and still tell the truth, but it is awful hard to love someone as devoutly as you do and be objective towards them."
STOP projecting and then inverting your manias on me.
"One can despise somebody and still tell the truth..."
Possibly.
Just as someone who supports someone "can still tell the truth."
I don't "devoutly love" Bush, you idjoot.
But you intensely hate him, and it is "awful hard" to hate someone as fervently as you do and "be objective towards them."
Look in the friggin' mirror.
"You are blinded by a really wierd love towards this guy..."
"Weird love," what?
Oh, I'm sorry, not just "weird," but "REALLY weird!"
"...and excuse every illegal act committed by him/them as justified because we are at 'war.'"
"Every illegal act."
Listen, bozo, there are Supreme Court Justices and Constitituional lawyers who now the law better than your Krugmans and Korns.
Bush is clean as a boyscout.
"Seriously man, get some perspective, your words were not taken out of context, they were in order based on your response, and even after putting them with their accompanied transcript, they don't shine any better light on either of you."
I don't give a damn what you think, Jeff. You see things upside down and inside out.
That's been well-demonstrated.
I spend over half my time here going after America's enemies and you spend all your time siding with them and sniping at the Commander in Chief.
Go to hell.
"And John(s)..."
It's Jeff, not "John," Bargholz.
"...if either of you don't think you are radicals and talking insanity right now, well guys, you really need some help."
I've stated my position and there's nothing "radical" about it.
It's ALMOST as "normal" as this:
"You are undemocratic, you are unamerican, you are a fascist, easy as pie my brother... it's really pretty fucking sad man...Bush is a prick, a liar, a criminal, a fascist, and deserves to go to jail...Pretty simple, Bush is a lying sack of criminal shit. No rant needed. Just facts..."Bush Hater, mother fucking right. I hate anyone who has a radical insane policy that lies, cheats , steals and murders people and our democracy. I can't stand you freakin fascists that can't think for themselves, can only spew what you hear on fox and GOP.com."
And what does "Mr. Moderate" here say about that?
"I am right and I stand proudly behind every word."
Idjoot.
Oh yeah, and my favorite Jeffism that isn't "radical" and "psychotic":
"I hope Bush gets assassinated."
LEE HARVEY (Jeff)
So tell me, Jeff, still "stand proudly behind each and every word?"
What? I can't hear you.
I think you are proving my points quite well for me.. Thanks :)
Sorry, I have been quiet all day...
Sanjay said,
"Some jihadists know nothing about the Koran they just hate US or Israel and use Jihad as an excuse."
My feeling is that if the Jihadist put as much emphasis on the other aspects of the Quran as they do the jihad we would not have the terrorist threat as we do today.
Jeff snidely remarked:
"I think you are proving my points quite well for me.. Thanks :)"
How's that, Jeff? For giving Bargholz the same equal time as I give you and Houston, who have called me, each in your own turns, "racist" and "bigoted" and "ignorant" because I think Cynthia Mckinnon looks like Buckwheat, the Quran can be read like a war-plan-- and is by many--and I support President Bush and the war effort?
Are they the points I "proved," Jeffy?
Kelly said:
"My feeling is that if the Jihadist put as much emphasis on the other aspects of the Quran as they do the jihad we would not have the terrorist threat as we do today."
Sure. Unfortunately, the Jihad aspects are hard to miss.
DL said:
"John rhetorically questioned whether he is or is not a racist becuse he thinks 'Cynthia Mckinnon looks like Buckwheat.'
as a minority, i believe there would be much more offense and a better foundation in believing that John is a racist if he had written: 'I think Buckwheat looks like Cynthia McKinnon.'"
I don't get it. Why? (I was simply honoring the precedent)
dl said:
"again, john, my apologies in rambling on and on.
ad nauseum..."
Not at all, dl. You're quite welcome.
Bargholz, please, point that bazooka at Jeff and Houston!
(I have the microwave popcorn ready to cook)
DL, said, "and if the best anyone can come up with is that john is a bigot, then i am afraid that does nothing more than to underscore the weakness of your position... whatever that may be."
You are so right on that. Though I do not see eye to eye with John on this subject I do not think he is a bigot.
The debate has been about whether or not the Quran endorses/ encourages terrorism and whether you can be a good muslim and not endorse terrorism or rather the jihad.
It is a legitimate question. But because the topic is not politically correct he is denounced as bigotted.
Having said that....
John,
you said,
"Kelly said:
"My feeling is that if the Jihadist put as much emphasis on the other aspects of the Quran as they do the jihad we would not have the terrorist threat as we do today."
John said, 'Sure. Unfortunately, the Jihad aspects are hard to miss.'"
I won't argue that the jihad aspects aren't spelled out loud and clear...but IF they say that to be a good muslim you must support the jihad, does that mean that they are a good muslim regardless of how they behave in accordance with the rest of the Quran?
If so...they are nitpicking to support their cause and are not in compliance with the entire Quran.
Where are they, Kelly?
Where are the "Say No To Violence" proclamations?
Where are the marches?
Are they afraid?
Are they that much more outnumbered?
Where are they?
John,
Look at what Saddam did with Iraq. Yes, these people are oppressed, they are very afraid. It takes tremendous courage to be like Wafa Sultan and her stand against radical Islam.
I will have to finish with my response later as it is getting late.
Bargholz, are you talking to me?
Well, no matter whom you were addressing, your rudeness tells me that you need some time off from sucking African cock.
If you would like to view one of my online tiffs with educated, although presumptuous and generally delusional socialists, See here and scroll down to the bottom of the page, and feel free to chime in.
http://animeg.blogspot.com/
Bargholz, I was saying that the people need political perspective beyond that of the current administration.
Communists and jihadists should NOT be allowed victory over our USA (which is #1)
But, mentioning communism, Bush is being a complete softie to the PRC, Castro is still alive, and the RESPECT party is gaining power in the UK, not to mention that FARC and the DPRK are still around, NOT being bombed or pressured out of communism by us, the USA. (also, I’m glad to know you supported the Serbs over the Albanian filth)
Our enlightened friend Jeff B. said:
"Despite your claim to the contrary, not everyone goes to schools restaurants and MOSQUES, and only the people who go to mosques murder people of other faiths because they dare to think differently."
then said:
"I never claimed that only people who go to mosques murder people, liar."
And you excuse the KKKs relationship to christianity by referring to them as goons but jihadists are just good examples of mainstream muslims. Again, go to Dearborne MI and have lunch at a Lashish resteraunt (its a big chain up here). A bunch of those people are muslims. As a descendent of North Indians none of my Muslim friends from Pakistan have never tried to murder me. But to read your hatefilled screeds, I can't imagine why everyone wouldn't get along with you. You sound like such a nice enlightened person. Oh, forgive me for thinking you want muslims eradicated, apparently you can eradicate Islam and still have muslims walking around.
John: A your familiar with my penchant for quoting movies:
"Oh, I'm an a-hole.. I'm just your kind of a-hole!" Where's it from? :)
Also, Jeff b says:
"P.S.,
I never advocated the eradication of muslims. I advocated the eradication of islame (sic)."
I think that’s interesting in light of what Jeffb said HERE:
"Muslims are responsible for islam, idiot"
John,
You're gonna have to enlighten me on how our enlightened friend Jeff B. isn't contradicting himself. Or do I have to use a little nuance to read between the lines?
Just out of curiousity, do you let that guy hang around to make yourself look sane :)
"P.S.,
(Bargholz said) "I never advocated the eradication of muslims. I advocated the eradication of islame (sic)."
Douglass said: I think that’s interesting in light of what Jeffb said HERE:
"Muslims are responsible for islam, idiot"
John says: That's not contradictory, either.
NO DEAL, john.
It's contradictory, and you know it.
Sanjay said:
"Just out of curiousity, do you let that guy hang around to make yourself look sane :)"
Yeah. And I let you guys hang around to make me look smart, wiseguy.
douglass said:
(Bargholz said) "I never advocated the eradication of muslims. I advocated the eradication of islame (sic)."
Douglass said: I think that’s interesting in light of what Jeffb said HERE:
"Muslims are responsible for islam, idiot"
John says: That's not contradictory, either.
NO DEAL, john.
It's contradictory, and you know it."
No it's not. The eradication of slavery was not the eradication of people who were slaveowners--and who were responsible for slavery.
Bargholz has the benefit of precedent to form his opinion (though I don't think of practicality, and certainly not popular support):
After WWII, the state religion of imperial Japan--Shinto--was dismantled (and now only exists in a scattered, innocuous form here and there).
And, of course the political religion of Nazism has been obliterated (with the occassional neo-Nazi group here and there).
Bargholz said that it would not be the first time a religion disappeared from the scene.
He's right.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Who worships Olympian Zeus?
No one.
Are there Greeks still around?
Last time I checked.
Who worships Odin and Thor?
No one, but the Nordic peoples are alive and well.
Yeah ok ,John, you are still defending jeffb for advocating the destruction of Islam.
It would be an extreme and highly malicious action for an American to attempt to restrict the free practice of religion. That is an action against the fundamental morals of American culture, freedom of religion. , When; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", the citizens have no business enforcing such a law, de facto.
It sounds fascist to me, to try to eradicate a religion because you are afraid of it.
If you and JeffB really want to eradicate the religion of Islam, then you two sound a lot like what, a few hundred years ago, the king of England wanted to do a to a sect he didn't like called the Puritans.
Those puritans SAILED, john, they sailed to America so that they could have FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
And if you and Jeffb, with all of your Christian love, want to sink that mayflower of religious freedom in the name of security, then in the words of Samuel Adams:
“If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Douglass, I did not "advocate the destruction of Islam." ANYWHERE.
I simply stated an historical fact.
I've made my own positions quite clear, *ad nauseum* in the last few commentary sections, and in entire posts.
I shouldn't have to defend myself on the same points over-and-over
on the same points if people, apparently, can't read and their objectivity is compromised by emotion.
John, I’m not talking about time and place.
I am talking about how it is wrong to inhibit the free practice of religion.
You gave examples of other religions being eradicated in defense of jeffb's assertion that this wouldn't be the first time a religion was destroyed.
I never even talked about that assertion.
I am talking about THIS: (Bargholz said)“I advocated the eradication of Islam”
You are flip-flopping john, I don't know your opinion here, one second you are saying that during the peak of Islamic culture, that was ok, they had a good civilization because of the influence of western ideas, then you say that the communist homosexual jeffb 'kicks ass' when he tosses around hollow threats and profanities while arguing for the eradication of Islam.
What is your deal, sir.
Douglass said:
"I am talking about how it is wrong to inhibit the free practice of religion."
EVERY religion?
"You gave examples of other religions being eradicated in defense of jeffb's assertion that this wouldn't be the first time a religion was destroyed."
Right. That's a fact.
"I never even talked about that assertion."
I was referring to Bargholz' assertion that Islam--like countless other movements before it--should be "showed the door," and making the distinction of his personal belief that Islam is bad religion and his quite explicit assertions that he's not advocating the "eradication" of Muslims (i.e. genocide).
I am talking about THIS: (Bargholz said)“I advocated the eradication of Islam”
Right. Then he said--in another commentary-that it wouldn't be the first time in history that a religion fell away. That's true.
"You are flip-flopping john..."
No I'm not.
"I don't know your opinion here..."
I've clarified it over and over again.
"... one second you are saying that during the peak of Islamic culture, that was ok..."
Not necessarily. I didn't make any judgment calls. I was being objective.
"...they had a good civilization because of the influence of western ideas..."
Yeah, that scores points with me.
"...then you say that the communist homosexual jeffb..."
HUH!?! lol Are you serious? Bargholz is a communist homosexual?
No way!
"...'kicks ass' when he tosses around hollow threats and profanities while arguing for the eradication of Islam."
Bargholz "kicks ass" because he has a bazooka and he's hilarious.
And I've been called things to. I think Jeff is often--and Houston is always-- a slanderous, unhinged asshole who insults both my intelligence and my character.
So what. I DON'T RESPOND BY REFERRING TO THE KIND OF GUN I HAVE, DOUGLASS.
And from what I gather, like me, words are put in Bargholz's mouth that weren't said, or the apparent intent of his meaning is misconstrued.
He can feel free to correct me, but it seems he simply thinks that Islam, as a whole, is malignant and brainwashes people towards violence--or the acceptance of it when commited by fellow Islamists.
He's had his life actually threatened on foreign soil and you should understand his rage.
I didn't say SYMPATHIZE, only understand.
He's obviously pissed.
I'll meet him half way and say that Islam has a strong tendency to instill violence to the most fanatical--or even fastidious, if there's a difference-- of believers who allow no other extra-Quranic influences to temper what is engendered.
I further went on to say that the tendency to do that is not confined to some "fringe extremist group" like Al Qaeda, but is endemic in Islamist cultures.
You can disagree with that if you want, and I'm sorry if you find that offensive because I welcome your participation and contributions (e.g. I will soon be posting something that directly stems out of a link you provided), but that's just what my eyes, ears, and common sense tells me, and no one here has convinced me otherwise by calling me names and trying to assassinate my character.
What's bizzare here is how fervently Bush and the conservatives are attacked for--what? Conservatism? Okay, but then ULTRA-SUPER-DUPER-CONSERVATIVE Islamic practices--e.g. horsewhipping of homosexuals, dress codes, ZERO religious freedom, etc. etc. etc.-- ARE DEFENDED WITH EQUAL FERVOR.
That's not "bizzare."
That's insane.
It's liberalogy.
And yes, it's refreshing to see someone directing his anger and energy to THE STATED ENEMY WE ARE AT WAR WITH and NOT to towards conservatism and Republicans.
Unhinged MOONBATS like Jeff spits 99% of his venom at Bush (or Republicus) and maybe--MAYBE--1% to Islamic terrorists, who are in any case marginalized to the size of a group you could fit in a cave or two.
John, again I confused a positive judgment for a normative one. (Perhaps the Dougl is superfluous)
I'm not offended by jeffb.
I didn’t know that b' served in the military.
I'm willing to let b' slide big time if he's putting his life on the line in the Armed Services, while blogging (quite a feat).
You do not offend me, either.
Also, I don't own a colt, John.
I was responding to b's physical threat with a rhetorical phrase, and if you haven’t heard it, john, you are the one who is in a cave:
"god created men, but Samuel colt made them equal"
On the topic of Islam, I'm just a stickler for religious freedom, in my mind, the enemy wins when we in America restrict our way of life and our freedoms in the name of fighting the enemy.
THEN they have won, for they have no other route (are they going to take Washington, I don't think so)
I can count on one thing. every terrorist organization has it's fair share of undercover snitches just itching for a suitable bounty.
We need to raise the bounty on some of these jihadis to draw out the snitches.
Once the snitch ball gets rolling, we can put a snitch jacket on anyone who is a real leader in the jihadi scene, and they will fall apart, just like the black panthers fell apart.
On liberals, I put my finger on the emotional significance applied to the notion of 'equality'
Douglass said: "John, again I confused a positive judgment for a normative one. (Perhaps the Dougl is superfluous)."
lol Not at all. There's a lot of crossed signals and mixed messages in this kind horn-honking traffic.
"I'm not offended by jeffb."
I'm not either.
"I didn’t know that b' served in the military."
I don't know if he did or not. He just said twice that Muslims tried to kill him when he was over there.
"I'm willing to let b' slide big time if he's putting his life on the line in the Armed Services, while blogging (quite a feat)."
I don't know. I don't think he's a milblogger, but maybe, I don't know.
"You do not offend me, either."
Good.
"Also, I don't own a colt, John.
I was responding to b's physical threat with a rhetorical phrase, and if you haven’t heard it, john, you are the one who is in a cave:
'god created men, but Samuel colt made them equal.'"
Heh. I...didn't make the connection.
"On the topic of Islam, I'm just a stickler for religious freedom, in my mind, the enemy wins when we in America restrict our way of life and our freedoms in the name of fighting the enemy."
Right, good or you!
But Islam--IN PRINCIPLE--does not extend the same courtesy!
I've heard all sorts of stuff about Mediaeval Islam's famous "tolerance"...
...towards dhimmi!
Do you know what that means?
"THEN they have won, for they have no other route (are they going to take Washington, I don't think so)."
Douglass, therre are PLENTY of mosques in this country that are operating and unvandalized.
Don't you think the torching of ONE would be the canary in the coal mine in that regard?
For God's sakes, Jihadist in Israel stormed and occupied the church of the Nativity in Bethlem not too long ago.
Was Christendom up in arms about that and ready to launch another Crusade?
No.
Draw a cartoon of Muhammad and imply that he's violent, on the other hand...
"I can count on one thing. every terrorist organization has it's fair share of undercover snitches just itching for a suitable bounty."
Not enough. I could retire with som of those bounties already in effect.
"We need to raise the bounty on some of these jihadis to draw out the snitches."
I don't know about that. Some of them are already so astronomically, another zero or even a triplet of them won't make much of a difference.
They gotta be paranoid as hell, though.
"Once the snitch ball gets rolling, we can put a snitch jacket on anyone who is a real leader in the jihadi scene, and they will fall apart, just like the black panthers fell apart."
There's a snitching going on in Iraq right now.
They recently uncovered the largest cache of explosives to date.
"On liberals, I put my finger on the emotional significance applied to the notion of 'equality.'"
Right. "Equality."
Like Orwell's Orson said:
"All animals are created equal--only some are more equal than others."
They're full of shit.
I've heard more vicious, ignorant, and utterly unwarranted harangues and attacks against Christianity--and Christians--than I could have possibly launched against Islam and Muslims.
B: Despite what the voices in your head tell you I am not a muslim. If you are a miliblogger then thank you for your service.
John: Seems to me you jump all over Jeff for comments like Bs. There was a time when was a place for respectful dialogue. I'm outta here.
I know your games, jeffb.
Black Sabbath WAS an example of international terrorism pre-1948.
The CIA says:
[The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html]
You can't just redefine words, like 'international terrorism', commie.
oh, Jeffb, I have noticed your use of the Hegelian dialectic, your Stalinist definition of fascism and your pinko commie frame game about my interpretation of constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.
Jeffb, as communist fronting as a member of the right wing who often relies on Leninist techniques, if not outright dau tranh, why did you ignore that when talking about religious freedom and the constitution, I was clearly talking about the US??
jeffb said: "Eradicating a cult because it's a vile threat to civilization isn't fascistic. You need to learn the definition of fascism."
heh. ok, Fascism was developed by the Italian Giovanni gentile, it's root is the platonic tradition..
and, how quickly do you forget that 'vile threat' to Hitler's aryan civilization, zee joos.
About religion, you speak as if Christianity didn't do the same thing to south and central America that Islam did to the middle east.
jeffb, I can see past your games and your Marxist-Leninist rage.
I agree that we need to take a pro-western stance in the face of a pro-Islamic stance.
When talking about places with a non-Islamic majority and a culture founded on the teachings of the Christian tradition, the idea of having Islamic auxiliary courts, or any other measure taken to make Islamic folk feel welcome at the expense of the native population should be rebuked outright.
In this situation (western v. Islamic) where an Islamic minority tries to FORCE
it's morality on the government and people of the majority, the westerners need to STICK UP FOR THIER OWN SIDE.
Believe me, jeffb, if anybody tries to force Islamic law on non-Muslims in my USA, I'll be right with you, cracking skulls.
but, until then, when we are dealing with warfare, Islamic rights are just as important as Christian rights, or Jewish rights, or anyone's rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home