# With whom are we at war?



## HDRider

Vote and share your thoughts..

Some appear to think that anger against Muslims is misdirected, while others fault all Muslims for not actively suppressing terrorism.


----------



## simi-steading

You forgot the real option:

Anyone / anything we can be, so as to generate as much revenue as possible for those in the war industry... 

We've pretty much been at was since WWII


----------



## MoonRiver

Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world, as well as itself. The US government refuses to acknowledge that fact, so we are not at war with Islam. 

Dropping a few bombs is not war. War is when you realize the security of the US is in danger and you respond with overwhelming force.


----------



## painterswife

simi-steading said:


> You forgot the real option:
> 
> Anyone / anything we can be, so as to generate as much revenue as possible for those in the war industry...
> 
> We've pretty much been at was since WWII


Exactly. I told my husband that when Bush 2 got elected we would be going to war in Iraq. That was before 9/11 ever happened.


----------



## Nevada

None of the above. We're protecting our interests in the region.

To protect those interests we'll partner with anyone, including fighting along side of Iranian troops. The sad thing about this conflict is that much of it would have been unnecessary. We created a lot of the problems that we're fighting to end.


----------



## HDRider

Has the meaning and form of war morphed into what we find ourselves facing in the Middle East?

I say yes. I also say we have not come to terms with Islam as a clash of cultures. We do not know how to do battle with this enemy. Always playing defense is never going to suppress the aggression we see directed at us. Nor can we placate, or pacify Islam to find peace with this culture.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Has the meaning and form of war morphed into what we find ourselves facing in the Middle East?


This isn't war changing, it's a failure of war. This isn't a new war, it's what you have when you leave a power vacuum after a war. We've given Sunni rebels a decade to organize, and even provided arms to make them strong.

We screwed up. In fact we screwed up badly, and the entire world is looking at the mess we created.

I'll tell you the same thing I told you 12 years ago; that military action isn't going to end terrorism. You told me I was wrong, and that I didn't understand the middle east or Islam. But I was right and Bush & Cheney were wrong. And today we're ready to use military force to make it worse.


----------



## arabian knight

Nevada said:


> . But I was right and Bush & Cheney were wrong.


NO you were NOT right. THEY WERE right and did NOT Lie about it either~!


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> NO you were NOT right. THEY WERE right and did NOT Lie about it either~!


Did military actions end terrorism? We gave Bush authorization to use military force, a military budget, and even a lot of our constitutional rights on the promise that giving him a free hand would allow him to end terrorism.

So I ask you 12 years alter, did it end terrorism?


----------



## HDRider

So now the "Blame Bush Club" is having a meeting, called to order by their grand poo-bah..

Beginning in the '60s...

The colonial era, failed post-colonial attempts at state formation, and the creation of Israel engendered a series of Marxist and anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab and Islamic world. The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.

In the late 1960s Palestinian secular movements such as Al Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) began to target civilians outside the immediate arena of conflict. Following Israel's 1967 defeat of Arab forces, Palestinian leaders realized that the Arab world was unable to militarily confront Israel. At the same time, lessons drawn from revolutionary movements in Latin America, North Africa, Southeast Asia as well as during the Jewish struggle against Britain in Palestine, saw the Palestinians move away from classic guerrilla, typically rural-based, warfare toward urban terrorism. Radical Palestinians took advantage of modern communication and transportation systems to internationalize their struggle. They launched a series of hijackings, kidnappings, bombings, and shootings, culminating in the kidnapping and subsequent deaths of Israeli athletes during the 1972 Munich Olympic games.

These Palestinian groups became a model for numerous secular militants, and offered lessons for subsequent ethnic and religious movements. Palestinians created an extensive transnational extremist network -- tied into which were various state sponsors such as the Soviet Union, certain Arab states, as well as traditional criminal organizations. By the end of the 1970s, the Palestinian secular network was a major channel for the spread of terrorist techniques worldwide.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html


----------



## HDRider

Further from the same source...

The year 1979 was a turning point in international terrorism. Throughout the Arab world and the West, the Iranian Islamic revolution sparked fears of a wave of revolutionary Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent anti-Soviet mujahedeen war, lasting from 1979 to 1989, stimulated the rise and expansion of terrorist groups. 

Indeed, the growth of a post-jihad pool of well-trained, battle-hardened militants is a key trend in contemporary international terrorism and insurgency-related violence. Volunteers from various parts of the Islamic world fought in Afghanistan, supported by conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia. 

In Yemen, for instance, the Riyadh-backed Islamic Front was established to provide financial, logistical, and training support for Yemeni volunteers. So called "Arab-Afghans" have -- and are -- using their experience to support local insurgencies in North Africa, Kashmir, Chechnya, China, Bosnia, and the Philippines.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> So now the "Blame Bush Club" is having a meeting, called to order by their grand poo-bah..


Well, this IS Bush's war. Why is it unfair to bring that fact up?


----------



## HDRider

The disintegration of post-Cold War states, and the Cold War legacy of a world awash in advanced conventional weapons and know-how, has assisted the proliferation of terrorism worldwide. Vacuums of stability created by conflict and absence of governance in areas such as the Balkans, Afghanistan, Colombia, and certain African countries offer ready made areas for terrorist training and recruitment activity, while smuggling and drug trafficking routes are often exploited by terrorists to support operations worldwide. With the increasing ease of transnational transportation and communication, the continued willingness of states such as Iran and Iraq to provide support, and dehumanizing ideologies that enable mass casualty attacks, the lethal potential of terrorist violence has reached new heights.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html


----------



## HDRider

So, all those have the simple notion that Bush did it, please leave the room.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> So, all those have the simple notion that Bush did it, please leave the room.


Like the economy, Bush broke Iraq. Neither the economy nor Iraq will be easy to fix.


----------



## arabian knight

Just tried to stop them and their WMD and we did.


----------



## Tricky Grama

How 'bout we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and ask each other what is meant by "...the shores of Tripoli.." & why our "Leathernecks" were in that war and when it 'started'.
Its Bush's fault.


----------



## Fennick

simi-steading said:


> You forgot the real option:
> 
> Anyone / anything we can be, so as to generate as much revenue as possible for those in the war industry...
> 
> *We've pretty much been at war since WWII*


Much longer than that. USA has been at war for over 240 years.

There has never been a time in the history of USA since 1775 that USA has not been involved in military conflict and war with somebody. As you said above, USA is all about war and it generates revenue for war industries everywhere. War - it's what USA is. 

So if everyone wants to look at it honestly, the answer to the OP's question _"who are we at war with?"_ is _"somebody, somewhere, always"._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_at_war


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Just tried to stop them and their WMD and we did.


I don't think anyone today believes that Saddam was any kind of a threat to the US.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Like the economy, Bush broke Iraq. Neither the economy nor Iraq will be easy to fix.


I disagree. The government broke Iraq and the government broke the economy. It took the President and the Executive Branch as well as Congress to get us in this deep.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Like the economy, Bush broke Iraq. Neither the economy nor Iraq will be easy to fix.


Everyone needs a devil. Bush is yours.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I disagree. The government broke Iraq and the government broke the economy. It took the President and the Executive Branch as well as Congress to get us in this deep.


Republicans were never big on taking responsibility.


----------



## kasilofhome

Satan and God are at war we are in the crossfire reacting to the results of the war. Our reactions impact the battles. We are not a cohesive group and have little in common with the different fractions.
We control the out come of the battle personally as we are given options by the seconds.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Republicans were never big on taking responsibility.


I seem to remember a lot of Democrats voting to go into Iraq. If Democrats hadn't voted for it, it wouldn't have passed the House or the Senate. The are co-equal idiots.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I seem to remember a lot of Democrats voting to go into Iraq. If Democrats hadn't voted for it, it wouldn't have passed the House or the Senate. The are co-equal idiots.


Oh I know, it was those war-mongering democrats.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Oh I know, it was those war-mongering democrats.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0[/ame]

Cast her vote to go to war "with conviction".


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Cast her vote to go to war "with conviction".


Where did she get her information about Iraq?

I think there is no question that both congress and the American people were mislead about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Where did she get her information about Iraq?
> 
> I think there is no question that both congress and the American people were mislead about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.


Her source of info was the same as everyone else.

She was on the Armed forces committee and the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She was an insider on all available intelligence.


----------



## farmrbrown

simi-steading said:


> You forgot the real option:
> 
> Anyone / anything we can be, so as to generate as much revenue as possible for those in the war industry...
> 
> We've pretty much been at was since WWII



Yep.



Fennick said:


> Much longer than that. USA has been at war for over 240 years.
> 
> There has never been a time in the history of USA since 1775 that USA has not been involved in military conflict and war with somebody. As you said above, USA is all about war and it generates revenue for war industries everywhere. War - it's what USA is.
> 
> So if everyone wants to look at it honestly, the answer to the OP's question _"who are we at war with?"_ is _"somebody, somewhere, always"._
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_at_war



Yep again.
I voted "No" since I know the constitutional limits of a "war", I know the last one ended in 1945.
I also am not naive and realize we've been bombing and killing almost non stop ever since.
But this foolishness of taking off my shoes at the airport because some 3rd world fanatics sucker punched us on 9/11/01 is a poor excuse for a "war".
There are also other reasons to be careful of nomenclature, words do matter.
Under "war" there can be extraordinary measures regarding civil liberties infringed. So, be careful what you ask for and be vigilant about strict definitions and interpretations.





Nevada said:


> None of the above. We're protecting our interests in the region.
> 
> To protect those interests we'll partner with anyone, including fighting along side of Iranian troops. The sad thing about this conflict is that much of it would have been unnecessary. We created a lot of the problems that we're fighting to end.




That's greed.
A true historical reason for wars, but unacceptable to decent human beings.


----------



## farmrbrown

HDRider said:


> Has the meaning and form of war morphed into what we find ourselves facing in the Middle East?
> 
> I say yes. I also say we have not come to terms with Islam as a clash of cultures. We do not know how to do battle with this enemy. Always playing defense is never going to suppress the aggression we see directed at us. Nor can we placate, or pacify Islam to find peace with this culture.



Oh, we KNOW how, we just haven't done it.



Nevada said:


> This isn't war changing, it's a failure of war. This isn't a new war, it's what you have when you leave a power vacuum after a war. We've given Sunni rebels a decade to organize, and even provided arms to make them strong.
> 
> We screwed up. In fact we screwed up badly, and the entire world is looking at the mess we created.
> 
> I'll tell you the same thing I told you 12 years ago; that military action isn't going to end terrorism. You told me I was wrong, and that I didn't understand the middle east or Islam. But I was right and Bush & Cheney were wrong. And today we're ready to use military force to make it worse.





Nevada said:


> Did military actions end terrorism? We gave Bush authorization to use military force, a military budget, and even a lot of our constitutional rights on the promise that giving him a free hand would allow him to end terrorism.
> 
> So I ask you 12 years alter, did it end terrorism?


You haven't seen the full force and might of the U.S.A. since August of 1945.
So don't try and tell me what works and what doesn't.
That dog won't hunt.


----------



## Tiempo

> co-equal idiots


This.


----------



## arabian knight

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, we KNOW how, we just haven't done it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't seen the full force and might of the U.S.A. since August of 1945.
> So don't try and tell me what works and what doesn't.
> That dog won't hunt.


The WORST thing to come out of the left is this stupid Rules Of Engagement.
That was the dumbest thing and has made these wars last so long and have really not been a winning force for the USA.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> You haven't seen the full force and might of the U.S.A. since August of 1945.
> So don't try and tell me what works and what doesn't.
> That dog won't hunt.


 You think nukes are the key to ending terrorism??:hysterical:

I don't know if you really believe that or not, but for anyone who does, 'yall aint too bright'.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> You think nukes are the key to ending terrorism??:hysterical:
> 
> I don't know if you really believe that or not, but for anyone who does, 'yall aint too bright'.


I never actually used the term, but in 1945 we beat two major powers into submission by unleashing the full force and might of the military.
Care to tell me how those countries view us now?
I may be country, but I ain't dumb.:cowboy:


----------



## arabian knight

WEAK that is how the rest of the world views America WEAK. Unwilling to WIN just drag stuff out WAY longer then it should.


----------



## farmrbrown

arabian knight said:


> The WORST thing to come out of the left is this stupid Rules Of Engagement.
> That was the dumbest thing and has made these wars last so long and have really not been a winning force for the USA.


True, but I don't know if you are including both Bush Presidents as "the left", because I know for a fact they did it too.
I don't care about party, I care about character and I haven't seen much good character lately.


----------



## farmrbrown

arabian knight said:


> WEAK that is how the rest of the world views America WEAK. Unwilling to WIN just drag stuff out WAY longer then it should.


Maybe so, but they haven't crossed the pond to pick a fight in the last 70 years, have they?


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> I never actually used the term, but in 1945 we beat two major powers into submission by unleashing the full force and might of the military.
> Care to tell me how those countries view us now?
> I may be country, but I ain't dumb.:cowboy:


Hmm, equating a war with nation-states to a war against religious fundamentalists... and proscribing the same solution. Doesn't sound like a good solution. Tell me, General Farmrbrown, what is the first target?


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Hmm, equating a war with nation-states to a war against religious fundamentalists... and proscribing the same solution. Doesn't sound like a good solution. Tell me, General Farmrbrown, what is the first target?


Apathy and antipathy.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Hmm, equating a war with nation-states to a war against religious fundamentalists... and proscribing the same solution. Doesn't sound like a good solution. Tell me, General Farmrbrown, what is the first target?




LOL. 
Thank you, but I have no such rank. I'd never make general because my lips won't form to kiss a ......... donkey.

I went thru this whole strategy with Lt. Nevada on another thread.
Study "The Art of War", every great general in history has.
From the movements and dynamics going on today, if properly handled, I'd say northern Syria and Iraq, then take a look at northern Africa next.

BUT, before doing anything, I'd have a serious conference with the two major funders of this foolishness, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I'd tell them if they want to fight over the descendants of Mohammed and control of Islam (Sunni vs. Shia) keep it in your own backyard. If your fight spills over into other countries, we CAN stop it in a New York minute.........pun intended.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

We're at war all right, even if our government refuses to name the enemy. The head of the FBI says there are ISIS fighters in all 50 states. Anyone think they're here for Big Macs and Fries?

You can't separate islam from sharia law, and sharia law is incompatible with Western civilization. Worse than oil and water, they're more like fuel and flame. At some point in time this will come to a head, but only after our Sad Sack government and leftist appeasers come to a rude awakening.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Where did she get her information about Iraq?
> 
> I think there is no question that both congress and the American people were mislead about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.


Many, if not all, had access to the same information.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Exactly. I told my husband that when Bush 2 got elected we would be going to war in Iraq. That was before 9/11 ever happened.


If you check we were still 'at war' with Iraq from the time Bush 41 started it, through all 8 years of Clinton and up to the point Bush 43 ended it. Iraq NEVER surrendered to Bush 41 nor Clinton.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> If you check we were still 'at war' with Iraq from the time Bush 41 started it, through all 8 years of Clinton and up to the point Bush 43 ended it. Iraq NEVER surrendered to Bush 41 nor Clinton.


You are saying that there was an active war because no one surrendered.


----------



## Shine

No formal declaration of war was ever tendered in Iraq...


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> Everyone needs a devil. Bush is yours.


 And the 'Islamic Boogeyman' is yours. And hippies. Can't forget the hippies.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> And the 'Islamic Boogeyman' is yours. And hippies. Can't forget the hippies.









[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF6jDlPCEsU[/ame]


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> LOL.
> Thank you, but I have no such rank. I'd never make general because my lips won't form to kiss a ......... donkey.
> 
> From the movements and dynamics going on today, if properly handled, I'd say northern Syria and Iraq, then take a look at northern Africa next.
> ded.


 What are you proposing we do in 'Northern Iraq and Syria'? You implied using nukes, where specifically?


----------



## greg273

HD, the radicals are a tiny minority of Islam. What is it about that fact you refuse to acknowledge? Are you really that blind to the reality of the situation?


----------



## HDRider

Shine said:


> No formal declaration of war was ever tendered in Iraq...


Congress has voted 23 times to authorize limited military engagements including Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnso...gress-has-declared-war-on-and-why#.tlNdOAAwEV


----------



## simi-steading

134 "wars" right now...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-now-involved-134-wars/196846/

A very good read....


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> HD, the radicals are a tiny minority of Islam. What is it about that fact you refuse to acknowledge? Are you really that blind to the reality of the situation?


Blindness is an affliction rampant in America.

I can easily turn the question right back on you. And maybe even you can see they are a very effective "tiny minority".

From:http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...rviews-the-muslims-in-america-who-want-sharia

The poll &#8230; found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Sharia standards.

&#8230; &#8220;Almost half of those Muslims surveyed &#8212; an astonishing 46 percent &#8212; said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,&#8221; said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey&#8217;s results.

&#8220;Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,&#8221; he said.

Wenzel said even the 9 percent &#8220;undecided&#8221; on that particular question is alarming.

&#8230; Wenzel&#8217;s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they &#8220;strongly agree&#8221; with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> What are you proposing we do in 'Northern Iraq and Syria'? You implied using nukes, where specifically?


I'm not going to type that whole thing in again, and I can't get the "search" function to find it right now. Besides I'm not in charge of much of anything and what I say really isn't going to be paid attention to by the Pentagon anyway.

If you want to molly coddle these thugs, have at it. If they start stuff on our soil, there's plenty of backwood boys that won't let them see the sun come up.

If an oppressor won't stop picking at you you can be a victim or a victor.
It's really not that hard to understand.........for some of us anyway.


Never mind, I found the thread, and you were on it at the time, so I guess you missed it.
Page 4, post 67.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/politics/532904-isis-hostage-crisis-not-over-4.html


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> HD, the radicals are a tiny minority of Islam. What is it about that fact you refuse to acknowledge? Are you really that blind to the reality of the situation?



I dunno, you tell me what I should believe, after googling these terms, of course.......Taqiyya and Kitman.:hrm:


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> I dunno, you tell me what I should believe, after googling these terms, of course.......Taqiyya and Kitman.:hrm:


 Nah , you're gonna believe what you want to believe, that all muslims are just radical jihadists waiting for the opportune moment to cut your head off and make your wife wear a burkha. Its almost as if you and many others on this forum have never actually met a Muslim in person. Obviously there are many radical jihadis who are just as you fear them to be, crazed and bloodthirsty zealots, but the vast majority of Muslims are just normal people who want to live their life and let you live yours.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

greg273 said:


> HD, the radicals are a tiny minority of Islam. What is it about that fact you refuse to acknowledge? Are you really that blind to the reality of the situation?


How about trying a little logic for a change? If they're such a tiny minority, why hasn't the huge majority put an end to their terror? After all, if they're defaming the true islam, their book says they should be put to death. 

By the way, what percentage would you estimate to be in that "tiny" minority? Of the estimated 3 billion muslims, how many terrorists does that mean?

Don't argue just for the sake of being a contrarian, give reason a chance.


----------



## painterswife

Ozarks Tom said:


> How about trying a little logic for a change? If they're such a tiny minority, why hasn't the huge majority put an end to their terror? After all, if they're defaming the true islam, their book says they should be put to death.
> 
> By the way, what percentage would you estimate to be in that "tiny" minority? Of the estimated 3 billion muslims, how many terrorists does that mean?
> 
> Don't argue just for the sake of being a contrarian, give reason a chance.


Why haven't Christians put an end to radical Christians?


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Nah , you're gonna believe what you want to believe, that all muslims are just radical jihadists waiting for the opportune moment to cut your head off and make your wife wear a burkha. Its almost as if you and many others on this forum have never actually met a Muslim in person. Obviously there are many radical jihadis who are just as you fear them to be, crazed and bloodthirsty zealots, but the vast majority of Muslims are just normal people who want to live their life and let you live yours.


Yes, that may be true. I've certainly met and been friends with Muslims, often having conversations about their fasting during Ramadan, among other topics.

You may have misunderstood what I meant.
What I said was, that I can't honestly say what the majority of Muslims think, believe and support.
The basis of that uncertainty lies in the terms I asked you to research, Taqiyya and Kitman.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> Why haven't Christians put an end to radical Christians?



What is it with you and radical Christians? In the United States, what are they doing unless you are talking about those Neanderthal Westboro Baptist Church nuts whom no one supports!

Have the radical Christians been stoning or beheading people?????


----------



## DJ in WA

Ozarks Tom said:


> We're at war all right, even if our government refuses to name the enemy. The head of the FBI says there are ISIS fighters in all 50 states. Anyone think they're here for Big Macs and Fries?
> 
> You can't separate islam from sharia law, and sharia law is incompatible with Western civilization. Worse than oil and water, they're more like fuel and flame. At some point in time this will come to a head, but only after our Sad Sack government and leftist appeasers come to a rude awakening.


Of course, to get more funding, government has to spread fear and hatred. Where are these ISIS fighters, and what are they doing? I've been watching the news and haven't heard of any killings in our state by ISIS. Did have a guy recently kill 3 relatives and set their house on fire, burning their bodies. Maybe we need to spend trillions of dollars preventing that!

People are very easy to manipulate. Incite fear, and accuse them of loving the enemy if they don't buy what you're selling.

I've always wondered why Brazil isn't as worried about muslims as we are. We installed dictator in Iran, gave Saddam WMD's, then removed him, and blew up his country. Don't know why we can't leave things alone, but as others have stated, you can make a lot of money off war, as General Smedley Butler wrote in his War is a Racket piece.

As with most of government, it causes a problem, then offers a solution. Destabilize a region, then send in the military. Repeat as necessary.

Some quotes

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." 
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials[/SIZE] 

âGovernment is a disease masquerading as its own cure.â
&#8213;Robert LeFevre

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
H. L. Mencken


----------



## JJ Grandits

My war is with liberalism. It is the great enemy destroying our nation like cancer. It is the root cause of almost all our problems today. It is the method of hypocrites and traitors. Liberalism is the enemy within. There is no external force as dangerous.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I don't think anyone today believes that Saddam was any kind of a threat to the US.


I guess all those hi ranking "Ds" who yelled constantly about 'taking saddam out' were wrongwrongwrong, huh.
Want my list? So someone can claim 'out of context' or try to walk it all back again?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess all those hi ranking "Ds" who yelled constantly about 'taking saddam out' were wrongwrongwrong, huh.
> Want my list? So someone can claim 'out of context' or try to walk it all back again?


"I don't think anyone* today *believes that Saddam was any kind of a threat to the US."


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Where did she get her information about Iraq?
> 
> I think there is no question that both congress and the American people were mislead about Iraq's intentions and capabilities.


Intel from Italy, Germany, France, US. For starters.
Documentaries showing the "angel of death" a doc in Iraq making chemical weapons. Maybe you weren't old enuf to be watching that...


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> The WORST thing to come out of the left is this stupid Rules Of Engagement.
> That was the dumbest thing and has made these wars last so long and have really not been a winning force for the USA.


Post of the millenniem award


----------



## mmoetc

The next president will likely be someone who thinks the invasion was a mistake based on today's information. Even a republican one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...was-a-mistake/article24469747/?service=mobile


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> The next president will likely be someone who thinks the invasion was a mistake based on today's information. Even a republican one. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...was-a-mistake/article24469747/?service=mobile


"A dozen years later, American politics has reached a rough consensus about the Iraq War: It was a mistake.

Politicians hoping to be president rarely run ahead of public opinion. So itâs a revealing moment when the major contenders for president in both parties find it best to say that 4,491 Americans and countless Iraqis lost their lives in a war that shouldnât have been waged."


----------



## Laura Zone 5

The right option was not available.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against *the devilâs schemes.*
12 For our struggle is *not against*_flesh and blood_, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 
13 *Therefore* put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 
14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 
15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 
17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Ephesians 6


----------



## mmoetc

As to rules of engagement. I think the last line says it all. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/100707/petraeus-review-rules-engagement


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> HD, the radicals are a tiny minority of Islam. What is it about that fact you refuse to acknowledge? Are you really that blind to the reality of the situation?


"Tiny" is sure powerful. This 'JD' team has now, in a matter of months, pretty much taken territory the size of 1/2 Iraq. People who were there have fled. I think its pretty clear what to do...full force. 
You can't be serious if you fly about a dozen 'sorties'/day over that area or some of it and just take a looky. In Desert Storm we flew 1125/day. In the Iraq war-800/day. Get our specail forces in. take out ISIS. 
Sure, + they're in -what-50 countries? Rat 'em out, round 'em up. Toss /em in gitmo b/4 its closed. Or send 'em to the PTB in whatever country we found 'em in.


----------



## TnAndy

simi-steading said:


> You forgot the real option:
> 
> Anyone / anything we can be, so as to generate as much revenue as possible for those in the war industry...
> 
> We've pretty much been at was since WWII



This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


As General Butler said in the 30's "War is a racket".


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Nah , you're gonna believe what you want to believe, that all muslims are just radical jihadists waiting for the opportune moment to cut your head off and make your wife wear a burkha. Its almost as if you and many others on this forum have never actually met a Muslim in person. Obviously there are many radical jihadis who are just as you fear them to be, crazed and bloodthirsty zealots, but the vast majority of Muslims are just normal people who want to live their life and let you live yours.


I really want you to stop this LIE. You continue to say it over & over. NO ONE has said all muslims are radical jihadists. NO ONE! You've quoted posts that say just the opposite, that a certain percent believe in jihad. It is MORE THAN a TINY %, however. We have shown links over&over&over. 

I only want you to STOP putting words in our mouths. I want you to STOP LYING about us.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Why haven't Christians put an end to radical Christians?


We will when they look like they'll behead someone. 
Look at how the WBC has been silenced. They still come out but are silenced everytime they do. A 'tiny' minority. 
Go ahead, now pull up some obscure anti-abortionist who killed someone. But don't try to tell us everyone held that killer up for honors.

If you'd ask the general public that ? you'd be ridiculed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> "I don't think anyone* today *believes that Saddam was any kind of a threat to the US."


No one thinks he is today, he's dead.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> No one thinks he is today, he's dead.


Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
"I don't think anyone today believes that Saddam *was* any kind of a threat to the US."


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> We will when they look like they'll behead someone.
> Look at how the WBC has been silenced. They still come out but are silenced everytime they do. A 'tiny' minority.
> Go ahead, now pull up some obscure anti-abortionist who killed someone. But don't try to tell us everyone held that killer up for honors.
> 
> If you'd ask the general public that ? you'd be ridiculed.


Here ya go. http://www.examiner.com/article/chr...ristian-beheads-isis-militant-revenge-killing

Christian soldier beheads ISIS fighter.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> No one thinks he is today, he's dead.


It's been awhile since I diagrammed a sentence but I do remember something about tense being important. At least it was back in the good old days. Maybe it isn't so much now.


----------



## arabian knight

painterswife said:


> Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
> "I don't think anyone today believes that Saddam *was* any kind of a threat to the US."


Until they found out that WMD's were not a lie, now they think different.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Until they found out that WMD's were not a lie, now they think different.


 What WMDs? The anticipated, degraded pre-1991 ones? Because THAT was what was found. You really need to pull your head out of the uh, sand.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> Until they found out that WMD's were not a lie, now they think different.


Apparently Gov. Walker didn't get the memo. Even he says he wouldn't have invaded given what we know now. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-iraq-invasion-bush


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Until they found out that WMD's were not a lie, now they think different.


Prove it. Posting and repeating things proven to be wrong is getting boring.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> I really want you to stop this LIE. You continue to say it over & over. NO ONE has said all muslims are radical jihadists. NO ONE! You've quoted posts that say just the opposite, that a certain percent believe in jihad. It is MORE THAN a TINY %, however. We have shown links over&over&over.
> 
> I only want you to STOP putting words in our mouths. I want you to STOP LYING about us.


 I have heard numerous times on this forum that there are 'NO peaceful Muslims'. How about stopping THAT lie? 
And 'believing in jihad' is a far cry from waging jihad. Let me say that a poll of 600 Muslims conducted by the World Nut Daily is about as shady and untrustworthy as they come.


----------



## arabian knight

Will I?

I think I should do this, ya I will.

*Bob Woodward: Bush did not lie about WMD in Iraq.*


> Today, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Bob Woodward about the questions the GOP candidates have been getting about Iraq: Was the 2003 invasion a mistake? Woodward answered:
> [Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence.* But there was no lying in this that I could find.*


http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/05/bob-woodward-bush-did-not-lie-about-wmd.html


----------



## painterswife

"Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observersâboth Muslim[6] and non-Muslim[7]â, as well as the Dictionary of Islam,[3] talk of *jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"*), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad")[3][8] which may take a violent or non-violent form.[9] Jihad is often translated as "Holy War",[10][11][12] although this term is controversial.[13] Orientalist Bernard Lewis claims in the large majority of cases jihad has a military meaning,[14] but others disagree. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[15] Ghamide also states there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam after the time of Muhammad and his companions, and the only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> Will I?
> 
> I think I should do this, ya I will.
> 
> *Bob Woodward: Bush did not lie about WMD in Iraq.*
> 
> 
> http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/05/bob-woodward-bush-did-not-lie-about-wmd.html


I'm not saying he lied. I'm saying he was wrong. A stance most of the republicans currently vying for the presidency agree with. Being wrong cost us thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands more permanently disrupted and trillions of dollars we'll never get back.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> *But there was no lying in this that I could find.*


Yes, there was. When Bush said in the State of the Union address that Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa, that fact had already been discredited -- and Bush knew it. There is no realistic dispute that he misled congress and the American people about that.


----------



## HDRider

We are at war with ourselves.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> I have heard numerous times on this forum that there are 'NO peaceful Muslims'. How about stopping THAT lie?
> And 'believing in jihad' is a far cry from waging jihad. Let me say that a poll of 600 Muslims conducted by the World Nut Daily is about as shady and untrustworthy as they come.


Then quote that post. Do not tell us we're calling them all beheaders!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Yes, there was. When Bush said in the State of the Union address that Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa, that fact had already been discredited -- and Bush knew it. There is no realistic dispute that he misled congress and the American people about that.


You say it was disproven, I have the article form the Dallas paper saying there WAS yellow cake purchased & shipped to Canada. So & guess its just one agin the other...


----------



## 7thswan

The US also had info from other Countrys all arround the world about the WMD, they all agreeded with what was given to our Reps.


----------



## 7thswan

Why are talking about Bush again. Obama is useing our Military to fight his own islamic PERSONAL war, ,,well add valeri Jarettet to that. O is our own terrorist, he must have a nuke in his back pocket or else he'd be gone by now.


----------



## kuriakos

Nevada said:


> I'll tell you the same thing I told you 12 years ago; that military action isn't going to end terrorism. You told me I was wrong, and that I didn't understand the middle east or Islam.


Who did you tell this to 12 years ago? You're addressing HDR but the join dates of both of you indicate that isn't what you meant unless you knew each other somewhere else at the time. I'm confused and trying to understand who you had this conversation with.


----------



## Patchouli

kuriakos said:


> Who did you tell this to 12 years ago? You're addressing HDR but the join dates of both of you indicate that isn't what you meant unless you knew each other somewhere else at the time. I'm confused and trying to understand who you had this conversation with.


I am guessing that was a universal you. And I fully believe Nevada of all people took that stance. It was definitely not a popular one and people got destroyed for saying it but I wish we had listened to them.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> You say it was disproven, I have the article form the Dallas paper saying there WAS yellow cake purchased & shipped to Canada. So & guess its just one agin the other...


 The 'Canadian Urarium' shipped from Iraq to Canada was well known, sealed remnants of Iraqs abandoned nuclear program from the 1980s. You're confusing this with the 'Nigerian Forgery' documents Bush talked about in the 2003 State of the Union address that claimed Saddam was trying to buy more uranium. These documents were highly suspect and deemed fraudulent by the State Department long before Bush got on TV trying to scare the bejeezus out of America with visions of mushroom clouds over US cities.


> * Uranium recently shipped from Iraq to Canada was left over from Saddam Hussein&#8217;s defunct nuclear weapons program and had been in sealed containers, under guard, since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. Claims that this material is "vindication" for President Bush&#8217;s WMD claims in 2003 are completely false.*


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries


----------



## Nevada

kuriakos said:


> Who did you tell this to 12 years ago? You're addressing HDR but the join dates of both of you indicate that isn't what you meant unless you knew each other somewhere else at the time. I'm confused and trying to understand who you had this conversation with.


Actually, I was here. Before September 2004 registration wasn't required to post at HT, including GC. The Internet was a much friendlier place back then.

Many members who were active in GC back then didn't register because we were concerned about government persecution (maybe even prosecution) for speaking our minds. Remember Bush's words; you were either with him or you were with the terrorists. He gave no middle ground on that. Therefore, many of us would post as 'Guest', but sign posts with a moniker (I used Nevada).

In September 2004 it became mandatory to register in order to post anywhere in HT. When that happened GC disappeared for unregistered members. That meant that GC content wasn't viewable without registration, so it wouldn't be indexed by search engines. That made me more comfortable about posting as a registered user, so I joined.


----------



## arabian knight

THANK YOU for giving me that BIGGEST LAUGH I have had in many a year. Thanks again`!


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> You are saying that there was an active war because no one surrendered.


That is correct. There was only a ceasefire agreement. That means both sides agreed to stop shooting but only if specific things happened. Once either side broke that agreement the other could legally resume shooting. Iraq repeatedly violated the agreement rendering it void. That means any member of the coalition could have started attacking Iraq at anytime. If you check you will see that Clinton attacked Iraq several times while he was in office.


----------



## watcher

Shine said:


> No formal declaration of war was ever tendered in Iraq...


There is no such thing as a "formal declaration of war" under US law. AFAIK, there is no such thing in international law either. A military attack on a one sovereign government by one or more other sovereign governments is taken as a act of war which means once such an attack takes place there is a legal state of war between them.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> There is no such thing as a "formal declaration of war" under US law. AFAIK, there is no such thing in international law either. A military attack on a one sovereign government by one or more other sovereign governments is taken as a act of war which means once such an attack takes place there is a legal state of war between them.


Congress used to declare war, but there are certain political advantages to not declaring war.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> *There is no such thing as a "formal declaration of war" under US law. * AFAIK, there is no such thing in *international law* either. A military attack on a one sovereign government by one or more other sovereign governments is taken as a act of war which means once such an attack takes place there is a legal state of war between them.


 Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars. 
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

The paper also addresses international laws and implications.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Iraq repeatedly violated the agreement rendering it void..


 True, which doesn't mean invasion and occupation was the only answer. Many on this forum have tried to justify the war based on 'ceasefire violations', as if the poor presidents hands were tied, leaving invasion the only solution. No, that was a war of choice, not neccessity.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> "Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition. Many observersâboth Muslim[6] and non-Muslim[7]â, as well as the Dictionary of Islam,[3] talk of *jihad having two meanings: an inner spiritual struggle (the "greater jihad"*), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad")[3][8] which may take a violent or non-violent form.[9] Jihad is often translated as "Holy War",[10][11][12] although this term is controversial.[13] Orientalist Bernard Lewis claims in the large majority of cases jihad has a military meaning,[14] but others disagree. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi states that there is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers.[15] Ghamide also states there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam after the time of Muhammad and his companions, and the only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad


Actually, these scholars prove our point. MOST muslims agree w/jihad. We're having to sort out which believe in ONLY 'spiritual' jihad? 
And as far as sharia law goes, which is incredibly violent, it appears those who've said they would like it to be the law of the land are in the majority. 
There's a lot of 'may' & 'talk of 2 meanings' 'always contain struggle against "wrong doers"' & 'to end oppression when other measures have failed'.
Proves our point. MOST muslims who were interviewed after the French 'Charlie' attack said they didn't really condone violence but it was ok to go after them b/c of the cartoons.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Actually, these scholars prove our point. MOST muslims agree w/jihad. We're having to sort out which believe in ONLY 'spiritual' jihad?
> And as far as sharia law goes, which is incredibly violent, it appears those who've said they would like it to be the law of the land are in the majority.
> There's a lot of 'may' & 'talk of 2 meanings' 'always contain struggle against "wrong doers"' & 'to end oppression when other measures have failed'.
> Proves our point. MOST muslims who were interviewed after the French 'Charlie' attack said they didn't really condone violence but it was ok to go after them b/c of the cartoons.


Does it now. Spin, spin, spin.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Congress used to declare war, but there are certain political advantages to not declaring war.


What is required in the constitutional for congress to declare war? Are there specific words they must use? Is there anything in there which says if congress does this then it has officially declared war?

Before you pull out your pocket copy of the USC I'll tell ya. There is nothing in there about it. Congress authorized, more than once BTW, the President to use military action/force against Iraq. The use of military action/force against a sovereign nation is war according to customs, standards and international law. So in its standard weasel way to allow its members to take both sides of an issue congress did declare war on Iraq.

If it had not it could have easily put an end to the action by refusing to fund anything other than the return of troops.


----------



## arabian knight

watcher said:


> What is required in the constitutional for congress to declare war? Are there specific words they must use? Is there anything in there which says if congress does this then it has officially declared war?
> 
> Before you pull out your pocket copy of the USC I'll tell ya. There is nothing in there about it. Congress authorized, more than once BTW, the President to use military action/force against Iraq. The use of military action/force against a sovereign nation is war according to customs, standards and international law. So in its standard weasel way to allow its members to take both sides of an issue congress did declare war on Iraq.
> 
> If it had not it could have easily put an end to the action by refusing to fund anything other than the return of troops.


Just like under Bush. Congress said "DO WHATEVER IT TAKES"
That in itself is pretty much Congress declaring war, as there are No Detailed Words in the Constitution that has to be used to declare a war.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> Congress and the President have enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars.
> https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
> 
> The paper also addresses international laws and implications.


Custom does not make it law nor a constitutional requirement. If you check you history it was customary for the President to serve no more than two terms but it was legal and constitutional when FDR sought and won a third term.

There is nothing in the USC which requires a specific congressional action to be done as a "declaration of war". Unless it has passed in the last 6 years there is no US statute requiring a declaration of war to have specific wording.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> True, which doesn't mean invasion and occupation was the only answer. Many on this forum have tried to justify the war based on 'ceasefire violations', as if the poor presidents hands were tied, leaving invasion the only solution. No, that was a war of choice, not neccessity.


Again you need to read up on your history. We spent the entire 8 years of the Clinton admin trying 'other solutions' and how well did they work?

Like it or not there are times when violence is the only answer.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Again you need to read up on your history. We spent the entire 8 years of the Clinton admin trying 'other solutions' and how well did they work?.


 Read up on history? I LIVED IT! Based on the lack of active WMD programs and materials found, seems like 'it worked' pretty well. Saddam was Iraqs problem, not ours. And invading and occupying that country wasn't worth ONE American life, much less 4500+.


----------



## gapeach

You realize that Iraq is worse now that it has ever been. ISIS has just kidnapped 88 Christians in Libya. ISIS brags that they will soon have Iraq under their control and liberation. The President claims that we have no ISIS plan ready. I do not believe our Military is not capable of defeating ISIS. The Pentagon has capabilities for any situation and they have presented him with a plan. If we continue to do nothing, ISIS will be right here in the United States. This is not a war of choice.


----------



## greg273

gapeach said:


> You realize that Iraq is worse now that it has ever been. .


 Yeah, that whole invasion, occupation and destruction of their civil infrastructure really didn't help them much. They've been in lawlessness and chaos since then.


----------



## gapeach

greg273 said:


> Yeah, that whole invasion, occupation and destruction of their civil infrastructure really didn't help them much. They've been in lawlessness and chaos since then.


It is time to move on to the present instead of living in the past. We are living in very dangerous times, even to the craziness of the TSA where they have put people on the terrorist list into the jobs that are supposed to catch *the terrorists*!


----------



## greg273

gapeach said:


> We are living in very dangerous times, even to the craziness of the TSA where they have put people on the terrorist list into the jobs that are supposed to catch *the terrorists*!


 Yes, we are living in dagerous times, in part thanks to ignorance and people spreading false information. It took me all of 45 seconds to look up 'TSA terror watchlist' and find a slew of articles that, on first glance, make it look like the TSA is employing 'terrorists', but if you actually READ THE ARTICLE, you'd see it was 'airport employees' that were flagged. Food vendors and such... NOT TSA AGENTS!! READ THE ARTICLES!!!! NOT JUST THE HEADLINES!!!!


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> It is time to move on to the present instead of living in the past.


What do you suggest we do differently this time? What I mean is, if we launch another all-out offensive in Iraq don't you expect the same results?


----------



## gapeach

greg273 said:


> Yes, we are living in dagerous times, in part thanks to ignorance and people spreading false information. It took me all of 45 seconds to look up 'TSA terror watchlist' and find a slew of articles that, on first glance, make it look like the TSA is employing 'terrorists', but if you actually READ THE ARTICLE, you'd see it was 'airport employees' that were flagged. Food vendors and such... NOT TSA AGENTS!! READ THE ARTICLES!!!! NOT JUST THE HEADLINES!!!!


Greg, you act like you are so knowledgeable and informed, Now tell me this is not disgraceful on something like Homeland Security which is so important. It has been a fiasco since it was first begun and hasn't gotten any better! We are worse off than we were on 9/11. Would you like someone on a terror list serving you coffee or a sandwich? 
*
TSA missed 73 airline industry workers on terrorism-related watchlists &#8211; audit

Department of Homeland Security says that thousands of biographical records held by the TSA were found to be missing or incomplete
*
The Transportation Safety Administration failed to identify 73 people on terrorism-related watchlists who were hired in the aviation industry, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security has revealed.

In a document published following an audit by the DHS, which oversees the TSA, the agency was found to have missed 73 people with terrorism-related category codes being employed by &#8220;major airlines, airport vendors, and other employers&#8221;.

*Thousands of biographical records held by the TSA were found to be missing or incomplete, and the DHS said the agency was relying on airports to send it data on the more than 2 million aviation workers it vets.*

*One and a half thousand records were found to contain first initials instead of a name; 14,000 immigrants employed had no alien registration number and 75,000 no passport number; and 87,000 had no social security number on file.*

&#8220;TSA did not identify these individuals through its vetting operations because it is not authorised to receive all terrorism-related categories under current interagency watchlisting policy,&#8221; the DHS document stated, adding that the agency had &#8220;acknowledged that these individuals were cleared for access to secure airport areas despite representing a potential transportation security threat&#8221;.

The revelation came the same week as news that the TSA, which was founded in November 2001 and is responsible for security at all US airports, failed 95% of so-called &#8220;red team&#8221; tests, in which undercover federal agents attempt to smuggle explosives and weaponry aboard aircraft.

&#8220;These numbers never look good out of context,&#8221; DHS secretary Jeh Johnson said, adding that the training and technology used would be re-evaluated.

That failure led to the removal of Melvin Carraway, the TSA&#8217;s acting chief. Coast guard admiral Peter Neffenger, who was nominated to lead the TSA in April by President Obama, is still awaiting confirmation by the Senate.

Such stories involving the TSA are not unfamiliar. In 2013, a report by the Government Accountability Office found there was &#8220;no evidence&#8221; that a $900m screening programme based on behavioural indicators worked. MORE>
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/08/tsa-missed-73-workers-terrorism-related-watchlist


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> What do you suggest we do differently this time? What I mean is, if we launch another all-out offensive in Iraq don't you expect the same results?


Same results yeah, if it is sold to the highest bidder again. Corporations made enormous amounts of money for non essential crap on the taxpayer dime. The longer the conflict the more money made. IMO


----------



## nchobbyfarm

greg273 said:


> Read up on history? I LIVED IT! Based on the lack of active WMD programs and materials found, seems like 'it worked' pretty well. Saddam was Iraqs problem, not ours. And invading and occupying that country wasn't worth ONE American life, much less 4500+.


The cease fire agreement approved by Saddam stated that UN inspectors could check on WMD. Saddam played games until the US said enough. Then he tried to change his stance and declare the inspectors could look. But only after he figured out he pushed to far! The only way to know for sure was to go ourselves. 

Also, you seem to blame the invasion for the human rights violations in Iraq. Are you saying that there were no human rights violations occurring under Saddam?


----------



## greg273

gapeach said:


> Greg, you act like you are so knowledgeable and informed


Don't get mad at me because I called you out on spreading false information, or because I take the 30 seconds to actually READ an article. Here is what you said...


> the craziness of the TSA where they have put people on the terrorist list into the jobs that are supposed to catch *the terrorists*!


 Last I checked, the guy selling coffee and donuts isn't in charge of 'catching terrorists'. Those were people hired by the airlines, NOT TSA.


----------



## gapeach

greg273 said:


> Yes, we are living in dagerous times, in part thanks to ignorance and people spreading false information. It took me all of 45 seconds to look up 'TSA terror watchlist' and find a slew of articles that, on first glance, make it look like the TSA is employing 'terrorists', but if you actually READ THE ARTICLE, you'd see it was 'airport employees' that were flagged. Food vendors and such... NOT TSA AGENTS!! READ THE ARTICLES!!!! NOT JUST THE HEADLINES!!!!



&#8220;TSA did not identify these individuals through its vetting operations because it is not authorised to receive all terrorism-related categories under current interagency watchlisting policy,&#8221; the DHS document stated, adding that the agency had &#8220;acknowledged that these individuals were cleared for access to secure airport areas *despite representing a potential transportation security threat&#8221;.*

The revelation came the same week as news that the TSA, which was founded in November 2001 and is *responsible for security at all US airports, failed 95% of so-called &#8220;red team&#8221; tests, in which undercover federal agents attempt to smuggle explosives and weaponry aboard aircraft.*


----------



## gapeach

greg273 said:


> Don't get mad at me because I called you out on spreading false information, or because I take the 30 seconds to actually READ an article. Here is what you said...
> 
> 
> Last I checked, the guy selling coffee and donuts isn't in charge of 'catching terrorists'. Those were people hired by the airlines, NOT TSA.


In a document published following an audit by the DHS, which oversees the TSA, *the agency was found to have missed 73 people with terrorism-related category codes being employed by âmajor airlines, airport vendors, and other employersâ. *

Isn't it the TSA job to catch the terrorism category codes? Isn't that a double check? What is the point of even having these jobs if they are not going to be doing what they are supposed to?


----------



## HDRider

The TSA is a fake Bollywood production.. Trying to make Americans "feel" safe. Its all about feelings. It is just a facade.

The US homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, has ordered improved security at airports and reassigned the top Transportation Security Administration official to another role after reports that screenings *failed to detect mock explosives and weapons in 95% of tests* carried out by undercover agents.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aised-after-fake-weapons-missed-by-screenings


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Custom does not make it law nor a constitutional requirement. If you check you history it was customary for the President to serve no more than two terms but it was legal and constitutional when FDR sought and won a third term.
> 
> There is nothing in the USC which requires a specific congressional action to be done as a "declaration of war". Unless it has passed in the last 6 years there is no US statute requiring a declaration of war to have specific wording.


Ok I get it you do not think the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I just pointed out there was such things as a formal declaration of war. I hope you fare well with your volumes of USC and the perpetual joy in defending killing in the state of war. Did you actually read the paper? I think not.


----------



## keenataz

gapeach said:


> It is time to move on to the present instead of living in the past. We are living in very dangerous times, even to the craziness of the TSA where they have put people on the terrorist list into the jobs that are supposed to catch *the terrorists*!


Well that is good news, so we can stop discussing Benghazi. After almost 3 years in the past


----------



## 7thswan

keenataz said:


> Well that is good news, so we can stop discussing Benghazi. After almost 3 years in the past


When do we START discussing Bengazi? First, lets hear someone take the fall for Fast and Furious. Start with the lier in chief.


----------



## Marshloft

keenataz said:


> Well that is good news, so we can stop discussing Benghazi. After almost 3 years in the past


 Absolutely,,, I mean really.
* "What difference does it make?"*


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Does it now. Spin, spin, spin.



So you don't see in the post you quoted that nowhere does it say only a small % of muslims favor jihad? Quite the opposite. 
There's reading comprehension & there's none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Yeah, that whole invasion, occupation and destruction of their civil infrastructure really didn't help them much. They've been in lawlessness and chaos since then.


Its sure funny that ol' vp LIEden said this was going down as Obama's greatest leagacy, getting out of Iraq w/it in such wonderful shape.
While the military community yelled NOOOOoooo!


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So you don't see in the post you quoted that nowhere does it say only a small % of muslims favor jihad? Quite the opposite.
> There's reading comprehension & there's none so blind as those who will not see.


Jihad has two meanings to Muslims. Did you know that?


----------



## Tricky Grama

I thought I read 97% ineffective. But not even a headline in the papers. Wow. If any biz was only 3-5% effective it be shut down. But under the Idiotincharge?! Nah, keep on keepin' on.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> Don't get mad at me because I called you out on spreading false information, or because I take the 30 seconds to actually READ an article. Here is what you said...
> 
> 
> Last I checked, the guy selling coffee and donuts isn't in charge of 'catching terrorists'. Those were people hired by the airlines, NOT TSA.


Depends on how you look at it. I work in a secure facility and everyone who works there must be cleared by the TSA. Everyone from the CEO of the company down to the kid who keeps the vending machines filled. To say that it doesn't matter that the guy selling coffee 'slipped through the cracks' is wrong. Once he's inside he has access to places that your average person does not. If a terror group wanted to strike an airport the best jobs for them to have are low level grunt jobs because no one pays any attention to those employees. 

I know what I'm talking about. I work for a private company but I am cleared by the TSA and have access to the facility. I drive up, they check my vehicle ID and my badges and have random vehicle searches (which are a joke for finding contraband) then I'm allowed entry. There are not law enforcement agents watching everyone in the facility which means I can walk into almost every area. Strangely enough the only places I can't enter easily is the LEA office. I guess they think that's the #1 place a terrorist would want to strike.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Jihad has two meanings to Muslims. Did you know that?


Of course.
Not the point. Point is, LOTS believe in jihad. and lots believe in sharia. and lots believe terrorists are justified.
Did you know that?


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> Ok I get it you do not think the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I just pointed out there was such things as a formal declaration of war. I hope you fare well with your volumes of USC and the perpetual joy in defending killing in the state of war. Did you actually read the paper? I think not.


Show me just where in the USC it is. Show me the exact wording required by the USC for a formal decoration of war.

You can not because its not there. 

All it says in Article 1 Section 8 is:

_The Congress shall have Power. . . .To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;_

There is nothing there saying how war must be declared, what words must be uttered or written nor anything else. 

Trying to say otherwise is twisting the constitution, not reading it.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Of course.
> Not the point. Point is, LOTS believe in jihad. and lots believe in sharia. and lots believe terrorists are justified.
> Did you know that?


But not all believe in the Jihad meaning you keep claiming they do.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> But not all believe in the Jihad meaning you keep claiming they do.


In general, they all believe that Jihad is striving to follow the teachings of the holy book. The confusion is over what following the holy book means to them.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Show me just where in the USC it is. Show me the exact wording required by the USC for a formal decoration of war.
> 
> You can not because its not there.
> 
> All it says in Article 1 Section 8 is:
> 
> _The Congress shall have Power. . . .To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;_
> 
> There is nothing there saying how war must be declared, what words must be uttered or written nor anything else.
> 
> Trying to say otherwise is twisting the constitution, not reading it.


For congress to declare war formally it passes a resolution which is then signed by the president, there in becoming formal. Yep constitutional declaration of war by congress the law making body and and only one empowered to do so. Under 50 USC Chapter 33 The war powers act contains in its body the term formal declaration of war (more in the absence of).


----------



## 7thswan

3 million muslims and 10 % belive in geehad. My dyslexia is bad but I still see alot of numbers.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> 3 million muslims and 10 % belive in geehad. My dyslexia is bad but I still see alot of numbers.


My math must be bad. I did not know that 10% was a majority.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> Depends on how you look at it. I work in a secure facility and everyone who works there must be cleared by the TSA. Everyone from the CEO of the company down to the kid who keeps the vending machines filled. To say that it doesn't matter that the guy selling coffee 'slipped through the cracks' is wrong.


 I did NOT say it was a 'good thing' that people on an FBI watch list got hired inside airports... I was replying to someone who claimed 'TSA was hiring terrorists' which is absolutely NOT what her link said. Perhaps she just made a mistake, but it seems to happen often, where the headline and the claim is far different than the facts.


----------



## gapeach

greg273 said:


> I did NOT say it was a 'good thing' that people on an FBI watch list got hired inside airports... I was replying to someone who claimed 'TSA was hiring terrorists' which is absolutely NOT what her link said. Perhaps she just made a mistake, but it seems to happen often, where the headline and the claim is far different than the facts.


 We are living in very dangerous times, even to the craziness of the TSA where they have put people on the terrorist list into the jobs that are supposed to catch the terrorists! 

This is the post, I copied it exactly. They did put people in jobs within the airport who had been on the FBI watch list for ties to terrorism.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> For congress to declare war formally it passes a resolution which is then signed by the president, there in becoming formal.


Ok and just what wording does the constitution say are necessary to be in that resolution? Must it even have the words "declare", "declaration" or even "war" in it? 

Read the following and tell me that it is not a declaration of war.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-105/pdf/STATUTE-105-Pg3.pdf

How about this:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114

Both are congress passed resolutions which give the President congressional 'permission' to use military force against a sovereign nation. And as I have stated the use of military force against a sovereign nation is the very definition of war.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Ok and just what wording does the constitution say are necessary to be in that resolution? Must it even have the words "declare", "declaration" or even "war" in it?
> 
> Read the following and tell me that it is not a declaration of war.
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-105/pdf/STATUTE-105-Pg3.pdf
> 
> How about this:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114
> 
> Both are congress passed resolutions which give the President congressional 'permission' to use military force against a sovereign nation. And as I have stated the use of military force against a sovereign nation is the very definition of war.


Ok, you want to fight over Symantecs, I will not. Believe what you wish and insist that congress needs a form letter approved in the USC to formally declare war. I get ya... I will keep in mind that you feel formal declarations of war have been and are unconstitutional. THOSE examples are covered under the war powers act, did you read it?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> But not all believe in the Jihad meaning you keep claiming they do.


Oh, so you know how many that is? We've provided links to it all. OVER&OVER&OVER. And are you STILL saying I-as well as everyone else-claim ALL MUSLIMS? Please stop this lie. We've shown the %s.
Someone supplies an opinion piece that a couple scholars wrote, saying there's 2 kinds of jihad. Well, duh. And then they say not ALL believe in both. Well, duh.
We've shown over & over that the majority Muslims IN AMERICA believe in Shariaa law. READ IT.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> In general, they all believe that Jihad is striving to follow the teachings of the holy book. The confusion is over what following the holy book means to them.


There's no confusion. The majority of muslims in OUR country believe there should be sharia law. THE MAJORITY.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Oh, so you know how many that is? We've provided links to it all. OVER&OVER&OVER.
> Someone supplies an opinion piece that a couple scholars wrote, saying there's 2 kinds of jihad. Well, duh. And then they say not ALL believe in both. Well, duh.
> We've shown over & over that the majority Muslims IN AMERICA believe in Shariaa law. READ IT.


Well you clarified your position quite well. A couple of scholars. That explains alot.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Well you clarified your position quite well. A couple of scholars. That explains alot.


My gosh, go back & read the post YOU quoted, I think Shogan 1st provided it, not sure, but its a quote form one of the muslim defenders here, NOT MY QUOTE! YOUR quote, quoted a couple scholars. So, are you discrediting that quote now? 
You're coming around, then.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> There's no confusion. The majority of muslims in OUR country believe there should be sharia law. THE MAJORITY.


Please point me to the study or poll that you are using as a basis to make this statement.


----------



## Tricky Grama

It is in YOUR post-#84 & again in 102 but originally you copied it from another thread, prolly the 'enlightened' one. Another poster posted it 1st.

I'm about on my last thread of patience.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> It is in YOUR post-#84 & again in 102 but originally you copied it from another thread, prolly the 'enlightened' one. Another poster posted it 1st.
> 
> I'm about on my last thread of patience.


I am asking about the majority of Muslims want sharia law and you are pointing me towards my posts?


----------



## gapeach

Tuesday, 02 June 2015 
* Shocking Interviews: The Muslims in America Who Want Sharia *

Written by Selwyn Duke 

They donât call it âLittle Mogadishuâ for nothing. The Cedar Riverside section of Minneapolis is home to the University of Minnesota, supplying college graduates who fight for jobs in a tough market. But this one neighborhood is also supplying something else: Dozens of jihadis â drawn from the areaâs large concentration of Somali refugees â who leave Cedar Riverside and travel abroad to fight for terrorist groups.
Just as shocking, though, are the attitudes of some who remain in the North Star State. This was [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmywzjdtRM"]revealed[/ame] recently by documentarian Ari Horowitz and a film crew from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, who took to the Cedar Riverside streets and asked some important questions. And they got some telling answers â ones that, distressingly, polls show reflect common sentiments among Muslims in America.
more..
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...rviews-the-muslims-in-america-who-want-sharia


My question is what would be done to them if they answered no?


----------



## mmoetc

painterswife said:


> I am asking about the majority of Muslims want sharia law and you are pointing me towards my posts?


I'm wondering what the percentage of Christians who want to follow the Ten Commandments or biblical law is? Is it any surprise that most followers of a religion would choose to follow its law?


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> I'm wondering what the percentage of Christians who want to follow the Ten Commandments or biblical law is? Is it any surprise that most followers of a religion would choose to follow its law?


I agree. Still interested where she is getting these stats she keeps talking about though.


----------



## gapeach

I think most people try to honor the ten commandments, Christians or not.

The quote about preferring Sharia law from the young man in the Mets cap (above) says it all-----"Of course, if you're a Muslim, yeah."
There is no over-reaction in American to the views of the Muslims who are living amongst us. They would rather be back in their war torn countries than here. It never works to bring someone here from a completely different life, religion, and culture and they do believe in Jihad no matter what some prefer to believe.


----------



## no really

I am going back to the original question. Who are we at war with? If the attitudes here are indicative of feelings in the real world, we are at war with ourselves.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> I agree. Still interested where she is getting these stats she keeps talking about though.


Still waiting.


----------



## mmoetc

painterswife said:


> Still waiting.


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Why haven't Christians put an end to radical Christians?


When was the last time you saw an abortion clinic bombed? Or any rad Christian do damage/blow themselves up, attack innocent people?


----------



## gapeach

no really said:


> I am going back to the original question. Who are we at war with? If the attitudes here are indicative of feelings in the real world, we are at war with ourselves.


It does seem to be that Republicans and Democrats are further apart than ever in my lifetime.

I think it got much worse when the Democrats became progressives and so far to the left. They are getting more and more red all the time and a lot of them do have ties to the Communist Party.

Barack Obama's involvement with the *Communist Party USA* 
 



*Communist leader on "friend" Barack Obama*

On November 15, 2008, Sam Webb, National Chair of the Communist Party USA delivered an address to the Communist Party USA National Committee. During his address, he noted the following concerning the party's relationship with Obama, 
_"The left can and should advance its own views and disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Its tone should be respectful. We are speaking to a friend."_ *Marable on Obama and Chicago communists*


The late marxist academic Manning Marable claimed that Barack Obama has read some of his books and "_understands what socialism is._" 
Marable, writing in the December 2008 issue of British Trotskyist journal Socialist Review, also claimed that Obama worked in Chicago with socialists with _backgrounds in the Communist Party._[1] 
_What makes Obama different is that he has also been a community organizer. He has read left literature, including my works, and he understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years..._ *Frank Marshall Davis*

much more...........
http://www.keywiki.org/Barack_Obama_and_the_Communist_Party


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I'm wondering what the percentage of Christians who want to follow the Ten Commandments or biblical law is? Is it any surprise that most followers of a religion would choose to follow its law?


10 Commandments are posted in stone all over D.C. B/c its partly the basis of our laws here. So, basically, we all do. 
See anything in those laws that tell the Judeo-Christian folks specifically not to have friends who are not of their faith? To put to death, burn to death, decapitate, make war on, or any way shape or form slay 'idolators', non-believers? Its in the Quran.
'07 Pew poll of AMERICAN Muslim attitudes showed 50% believe the Quran should be taken literally, 86% believe it is the word of Allah. 41% under 30 ys old believe civilian bombings are sometimes justified.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> Still waiting.


Still waiting for the link that Trick Grama keeps quoting.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I am asking about the majority of Muslims want sharia law and you are pointing me towards my posts?


You snarkily said "a couple of scholars" like you were quoting MY post. I was referring to YOUR post that spoke of a couple of scholars opinions.

Now you want links? Where were YOUR links? 

Here's a bunch. Please save 'em b/c most of us here are very weary of posting them over&over&over again, just to have the progressive lib group question it all over again. 

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09...-us-muslims-on-free-speech-shariah-law-144496

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress....l-analysis-a-billion-muslims-want-sharia-law/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...o/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/09/the_mysterious_moderate_muslim_.html


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> 10 Commandments are posted in stone all over D.C. B/c its partly the basis of our laws here. So, basically, we all do.
> See anything in those laws that tell the Judeo-Christian folks specifically not to have friends who are not of their faith? To put to death, burn to death, decapitate, make war on, or any way shape or form slay 'idolators', non-believers? Its in the Quran.
> '07 Pew poll of AMERICAN Muslim attitudes showed 50% believe the Quran should be taken literally, 86% believe it is the word of Allah. 41% under 30 ys old believe civilian bombings are sometimes justified.


Many Christians believe the bible should be taken literally. Many believe it is the word of God. It's almost surprising that all don't. We've bombed a lot of civilians in our time. Look up Dresden or Tokyo. Even our drones kill a fair share of civilians. Have a foreign power invade your country to "liberate" you and see what you might consider a legitimate bombing target.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> You snarkily said "a couple of scholars" like you were quoting MY post. I was referring to YOUR post that spoke of a couple of scholars opinions.
> 
> Now you want links? Where were YOUR links?
> 
> Here's a bunch. Please save 'em b/c most of us here are very weary of posting them over&over&over again, just to have the progressive lib group question it all over again.
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
> 
> http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09...-us-muslims-on-free-speech-shariah-law-144496
> 
> https://muslimstatistics.wordpress....l-analysis-a-billion-muslims-want-sharia-law/
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...o/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/09/the_mysterious_moderate_muslim_.html


*Where is the study about Muslims in the US? *You have provided 4 links that are opinion pieces and one link that is not about the US


----------



## gapeach

"To be a 'good' Muslim in America is to be a lousy one." Claiming you are purple does not allow you to deny your basic red in the mix. If you wish to escape Islamic oppression, then you will have to replace the Quran with something that grants freedom.
So true!


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> "To be a 'good' Muslim in America is to be a lousy one." Claiming you are purple does not allow you to deny your basic red in the mix. If you wish to escape Islamic oppression, then you will have to replace the Quran with something that grants freedom.
> So true!


Is that realistic? Would you replace the Bible with something else to escape persecution?


----------



## gapeach

The Bible does not tell me to do the things that the Koran tells the Muslims to do. If the Muslims are going to live in a free country, then they have to give up the Sharia Law.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> The Bible does not tell me to do the things that the Koran tells the Muslims to do. If the Muslims are going to live in a free country, then they have to give up the Sharia Law.


If it is a free country and they want to live their lives by Sharia law, what right do you have to say they can not?


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> The Bible does not tell me to do the things that the Koran tells the Muslims to do. If the Muslims are going to live in a free country, then they have to give up the Sharia Law.


My point is that it's no more realistic to expect them to give up the ways of their holy book than it is for you to give up the ways of the Bible. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## gapeach

This is the way it stands right now in the USA. Sharia law is contrary to our laws and U.S. Constitution. As you can read some states have already banned Sharia Law. This is something we need to work on and get it banned in all states. We need to let our Senators and Congressmen know that we want it to be banned or have legislation against it.



*One problem that communities and states around America face by the increased involvement of Muslims in the political, legislative and judicial process, is the attempt by some Muslims to institute Islamic civil law, known as Sharia law.*
*Sharia law is a problem because it is, for the most part, incompatible with established law like US Code and the US Constitution. Strict adherence to Sharia law allows for such things as honor killings, death sentences for adultery and prostitution and homosexuality, female genital mutilation, underage arranged marriages, and the beating of wives by Muslim men.*
*But some states are taking steps to ensure that Sharia law isnât implemented in America, passing legislation that prevents or outright bans Sharia law being used in their state courts. States like Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee have all passed similar legislation.*
*http://conservativetribune.com/states-ban-sharia-law/
*


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> If it is a free country and they want to live their lives by Sharia law, what right do you have to say they can not?


Because I am a citizen of the United States and I believe in abiding by our laws and our Constitution.


----------



## painterswife

There are certain parts of Sharia law that would not be allowed due to our laws. That is correct. However they are free to follow all Sharia laws that do not conflict with our laws.

Just as you can not have an abortion if it is a law in your religion but other can have an abortion if they wish to. We allow all religions from Jewish to Christian to practice their religion as they want within the frame work of our laws.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Sharia law is contrary to our laws and U.S. Constitution.


As is a lot of the Bible.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> There are certain parts of Sharia law that would not be allowed due to our laws. That is correct. However they are free to follow all Sharia laws that do not conflict with our laws.
> 
> Just as you can not have an abortion if it is a law in your religion but other can have an abortion if they wish to. We allow all religions from Jewish to Christian to practice their religion as they want within the frame work of our laws.


I don't think that is possible in Islam.
A true, good muslim is one that follow the command of Jihad and follow Sharia, Islam states that the ones who don't are not real Muslims and will be thrown in the hell- fire.

This is pretty informative reading on Muslims, radical and so called moderates.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/comments/10547


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> I don't think that is possible in Islam.
> A true, good muslim is one that follow the command of Jihad and follow Sharia, Islam states that the ones who don't are not real Muslims and will be thrown in the hell- fire.


How do you as a Christian decide what is possible for someone of another religion?

I think it is possible for you to be a good christian and bake a cake for a gay wedding.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> I don't think that is possible in Islam.
> A true, good muslim is one that follow the command of Jihad and follow Sharia


Only a small and radical minority of Muslims believe that.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> Only a small and radical minority of Muslims believe that.


I think he means Jihad as in holy war. A majority of Islam believes Jihad is the struggle within to stay true to their religion.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> Ok, you want to fight over Symantecs, I will not. Believe what you wish and insist that congress needs a form letter approved in the USC to formally declare war. I get ya... I will keep in mind that you feel formal declarations of war have been and are unconstitutional. THOSE examples are covered under the war powers act, did you read it?


No you don't get it. Because there is no specific requirement for the wording of a declaration of war in the USC such a declaration can be worded in many ways. 

If congress passes a resolution saying "The US is now at war with nation X" then they have declared war on nation X. 

If congress passes a resolution saying "The President may, if he wishes, use the military to attack nation Y." then they have declared war on nation Y. 

If congress passes a resolution saying "We hate nation Z and are going to use our overwhelming military might to wipe nation Z from the face of the earth. We will plow salt into their fields, we will burn down ever building on their land and kill every citizen from nation Z. We will destroy them so thoroughly that people in the future will read history and wonder if nation Z really existed or if it was a myth." then they have declared war no nation Z.

Just because the second and third example never uses the word "war" in them doesn't change what they are.

Now if you read what congress passed about military action against Iraq you will see that we clearly were at a legal state of war with them according to the constitution. And once we attacked them we were in a legal state of war with them according to international law.


----------



## gapeach

Nevada, if you believe that, you need to do some more research.

*Muslims in America Prefer Sharia Law to U.S. Constitutional Law* (Video)
http://centinel2012.com/2015/06/05/...r-sharia-law-to-u-s-constitutional-law-video/

*By. Dr Williamsâ A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of the worldâs Muslims want to be governed by an intransigent interpretation of Islamic law (sharia), and condone the stoning of women as a punishment for alleged adultery.*

The same majority favor hand amputation for thieves and the death penalty for many Muslim who converts to another religion.

http://conservativepapers.com/news/...muslims-want-islamic-law-sharia/#.VXiE0PlVhHw


----------



## 7thswan

Snagged this one , good for this thread


----------



## gapeach

*Written on November 1, 2014
80% of London Muslims Support ISIS
Filed under Terrorism 

by Daniel Greenfield*


http://conservativepapers.com/news/...muslims-want-islamic-law-sharia/#.VXiE0PlVhHw


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> I think he means Jihad as in holy war. A majority of Islam believes Jihad is the struggle within to stay true to their religion.



painterswife, Gapeach is female.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> If it is a free country and they want to live their lives by Sharia law, what right do you have to say they can not?


In THIS Country you think anyone should be able to follow Sharia Law-You don't know squat about sharia law. It's disgusting/sick/warped/barbaric, I don't think I can find a proper word for how backward and plain insane their "law" is. I'd get banned if I even mention some of the sickness they adhere to.


----------



## gapeach

7thswan said:


> Snagged this one , good for this thread



*WOW!* I am really not surprised at all though!


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> *Written on November 1, 2014
> 80% of London Muslims Support ISIS
> Filed under Terrorism
> 
> by Daniel Greenfield*
> 
> 
> http://conservativepapers.com/news/...muslims-want-islamic-law-sharia/#.VXiE0PlVhHw


No facts, just opinions.


----------



## Guest

There ya go Watcher spewing circular semantec ramblings. Authorized use of military force is not a formal declaration of war, although I would argue it does not matter anymore with the war powers act. This nation has become a killing machine for the profit of a few and the enjoyment of those supporting it.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> No facts, just opinions.



*Pew Research: Majority of Muslims Want Islamic law (sharia), 7.2 out of 10 based on 6 ratings
*


It was right below the article. This is all based on Pew Research.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> In THIS Country you think anyone should be able to follow Sharia Law-You don't know squat about sharia law. It's disgusting/sick/warped/barbaric, I don't think I can find a proper word for how backward and plain insane their "law" is. I'd get banned if I even mention some of the sickness they adhere to.


The point is as long as it does not go against the laws here you have no choice. Freedom of Religion.

I think it is disgusting for Christians to try and outlaw same sex marriage.


----------



## Tricky Grama

In addition, two years ago a poll was conducted on behalf of World Net Daily that revealed the following:

Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled&#8230;believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S. 

&#8220;Almost half of those Muslims surveyed &#8211; an astonishing 46 percent &#8211; said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,&#8221; said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey&#8217;s results.

&#8220;Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,&#8221; he said. 

Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.

&#8220;A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,&#8221; Wenzel said.

While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party&#8230;they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.

American Muslims, Wenzel said, &#8220;show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.&#8221;



And of course, here we are on the gay subject again!! Who'da thunk it! Every thread...
I'd like everyone to look at the pictures in one of the links of what happens to gays under Islam.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> *Pew Research: Majority of Muslims Want Islamic law (sharia), 7.2 out of 10 based on 6 ratings
> *
> 
> 
> It was right below the article. This is all based on Pew Research.


Have you actually read the PEW research article?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I think he means Jihad as in holy war. A majority of Islam believes Jihad is the struggle within to stay true to their religion.


I'll consider that you're wrongfully stated opinion until you post some reputable links.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> In addition, two years ago a poll was conducted on behalf of World Net Daily that revealed the following:
> 
> *Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polledâ¦believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S. *
> 
> âAlmost half of those Muslims surveyed â an astonishing 46 percent â said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,â said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the surveyâs results.
> 
> âEven more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,â he said.
> 
> Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.
> 
> âA much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,â Wenzel said.
> 
> While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Partyâ¦they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.
> 
> American Muslims, Wenzel said, âshow signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.â
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, here we are on the gay subject again!! Who'da thunk it! Every thread...
> I'd like everyone to look at the pictures in one of the links of what happens to gays under Islam.


As is their right to believe it. However the laws don't allow it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Only a small and radical minority of Muslims believe that.


An incorrect opinion. If you are going to state something different than polls showing differently then show a reputable link.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> An incorrect opinion. If you are going to state something different than polls showing differently then show a reputable link.


Upset that your links and statements have not panned out?


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> The point is as long as it does not go against the laws here you have no choice. Freedom of Religion.
> 
> I think it is disgusting for Christians to try and outlaw same sex marriage.


We were talking about Muslims and Sharia law. Murder,stoning,multilation,beating,treating women like slaves, honor killings, flogging, torture.
Other sick barbaric things. Just today an American has been killed in Syria. No word yet on how he died.


You are giving me a headache. I gave you facts.

Here is the Pew Research website. You can find anything about Muslims and Sharia Law that you want. http://www.pewforum.org/search/pew+research+on+muslims+and+sharia+law+2015/?site=pewforum


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> We were talking about Muslims and Sharia law. Murder,stoning,multilation,beating,treating women like slaves, honor killings, flogging, torture.
> Other sick barbaric things. Just today an American has been killed in Syria. No word yet on how he died.


We are talking Sharia law in the US. Those things are not allowed here.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> We were talking about Muslims and Sharia law. Murder,stoning,multilation,beating,treating women like slaves, honor killings, flogging, torture.
> Other sick barbaric things. Just today an American has been killed in Syria. No word yet on how he died.
> 
> 
> You are giving me a headache. I gave you facts.
> 
> Here is the Pew Research website. You can find anything about Muslims and Sharia Law that you want. http://www.pewforum.org/search/pew+research+on+muslims+and+sharia+law+2015/?site=pewforum


That research has nothing to do with the US.


----------



## gapeach

Don't you know that Muslim is the fastest growing population in the world? They want Sharia Law!!! Unless we put a ban on it in this country we will have it here eventually. We don't need Muslim politicians in our government either. That is why we should ever elect Muslims in Senate and Congress. They can make laws!
I posted the numbers who want Sharia Law. What else do you want?


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> That research has nothing to do with the US.




*Muslims in America Prefer Sharia Law to U.S. Constitutional Law* (Video)
http://centinel2012.com/2015/06/05/m...nal-law-video/

By. Dr Williams&#8211; A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of the world&#8217;s Muslims want to be governed by an intransigent interpretation of Islamic law (sharia), and condone the stoning of women as a punishment for alleged adultery.

The same majority favor hand amputation for thieves and the death penalty for many Muslim who converts to another religion.

http://conservativepapers.com/news/2.../#.VXiE0PlVhHw


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> *Muslims in America Prefer Sharia Law to U.S. Constitutional Law* (Video)
> http://centinel2012.com/2015/06/05/m...nal-law-video/
> 
> By. Dr Williamsâ A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of the worldâs Muslims want to be governed by an intransigent interpretation of Islamic law (sharia), and condone the stoning of women as a punishment for alleged adultery.
> 
> The same majority favor hand amputation for thieves and the death penalty for many Muslim who converts to another religion.
> 
> http://conservativepapers.com/news/2.../#.VXiE0PlVhHw


Again a right wing opinion piece not worth the time it took to make it.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> We are talking Sharia law in the US. Those things are not allowed here.


They do it anyway. Look arround, you will find cases of the wackos still useing sharia on their family members, yes here. Everywhere muslims go, they distroy-it is what their "religion" tells them to do. They think if they cause enough chaous, the 12 iman will come.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> Don't you know that Muslim is the fastest growing population in the world? They want Sharia Law!!! Unless we put a ban on it in this country we will have it here eventually. We don't need Muslim politicians in our government either. That is why we should ever elect Muslims in Senate and Congress. They can make laws!
> I posted the numbers who want Sharia Law. What else do you want?


Lots of spin going on there. Christians want lots of laws they can't have as well.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Again a right wing opinion piece not worth the time it took to make it.


You think a lefty rag will tell you the truth? The leftys like the control of islam, no diffrent than the nazis -govenrment control.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> Lots of spin going on there. Christians want lots of laws they can't have as well.



Are you an American Citizen?


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> Are you an American Citizen?


What would that have to do with this discussion? You must already think you know the answer.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> You think a lefty rag will tell you the truth? The leftys like the control of islam, no diffrent than the nazis -govenrment control.


Did I say that? Assumptions again.


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> We were talking about Muslims and Sharia law. Murder,stoning,multilation,beating,treating women like slaves, honor killings, flogging, torture.
> Other sick barbaric things. Just today an American has been killed in Syria. No word yet on how he died.
> 
> 
> You are giving me a headache. I gave you facts.
> 
> Here is the Pew Research website. You can find anything about Muslims and Sharia Law that you want. http://www.pewforum.org/search/pew+research+on+muslims+and+sharia+law+2015/?site=pewforum


It is my understanding that the laws you have in place already cover murder, stoning, genital mutilation, beatings, honor killings, etc and to my understanding, there are no exemptions other than self defense. 

I can't speak for treating women poorly or as slaves because in North America, that seem to be something that crops up from time to time under various circumstances. 

I do have some Muslim friends and they treat their wives and daughters extremely well and none of the girls marriages were arranged.


----------



## 7thswan

gapeach said:


> *Muslims in America Prefer Sharia Law to U.S. Constitutional Law* (Video)
> http://centinel2012.com/2015/06/05/m...nal-law-video/
> 
> By. Dr Williams&#8211; A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of the world&#8217;s Muslims want to be governed by an intransigent interpretation of Islamic law (sharia), and condone the stoning of women as a punishment for alleged adultery.
> 
> The same majority favor hand amputation for thieves and the death penalty for many Muslim who converts to another religion.
> 
> http://conservativepapers.com/news/2.../#.VXiE0PlVhHw


their beleifs about animals should have the Humane Society on their case, but hey, long as the insane are incharge...oh, ps, I saw hundreds of images of "melted" faces of Women/Girls that family members did to them. I looked a bit for it again to post here, decided it wouldn't matter to those feminist leftys anyway.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> There ya go Watcher spewing circular semantec ramblings. Authorized use of military force is not a formal declaration of war, although I would argue it does not matter anymore with the war powers act. This nation has become a killing machine for the profit of a few and the enjoyment of those supporting it.


Please explain your logic. The use of use of military force against a sovereign nation is, by almost anyone's definition, war. Most logical people would than conclude that by authorizing an action which is defined as war you are authorizing war. Authorizing something which results in the same action as declaring it to be done are, again logically, equal.

Example. Say you are the head of the chair department in a business. The company SOP manual says that before any unusable item is disposed it must be declared unusable by the head of the department it belongs to and that's ALL it says. There's no from which must be used and doesn't give an example of the wording that must be used. One day an employee comes to you with a broken chair and you give him a signed piece of paper saying "I authorize Joe Jones to throw this chair away." and file copies of the paper with all the proper people. Have you violated the company SOP? After all you didn't say "I, as head of the chair department, now and forever declare this chair unusable and therefore declare that this chair maybe, should be and will be disposed of for the good of the company." you just gave him "authorization" to throw it away.

Would you think it logical if your boss called you in the next day and told you because you didn't declare the chair unusable and declare that it should be disposed of he was going to fire you?


----------



## watcher

wr said:


> It is my understanding that the laws you have in place already cover murder, stoning, genital mutilation, beatings, honor killings, etc and to my understanding, there are no exemptions other than self defense.
> 
> I can't speak for treating women poorly or as slaves because in North America, that seem to be something that crops up from time to time under various circumstances.
> 
> I do have some Muslim friends and they treat their wives and daughters extremely well and none of the girls marriages were arranged.


Because someone calls themselves a car and sleeps in the garage doesn't make them one. There are a lot of people who claim to be members of a lot of religions who do not follow the teachings of that religion.

I know "Jews" who eat pork and work all weekend. I know "Christians" who are currently in adulterous relationships. I know "Muslims" who eat pork and drink like collage frat boys. I know "Buddhist" who will fight at the drop of a hat and if you don't drop yours they'll knock it out of your hand.

You judge someone comparing their actions against the set of standards they claim to be following. If they don't line up you can fairly say they are not what they claim to be.

FYI, the standards for all of these religions are not some great hidden secret, you can easily find them.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Because someone calls themselves a car and sleeps in the garage doesn't make them one. There are a lot of people who claim to be members of a lot of religions who do not follow the teachings of that religion.
> 
> I know "Jews" who eat pork and work all weekend. I know "Christians" who are currently in adulterous relationships. I know "Muslims" who eat pork and drink like collage frat boys. I know "Buddhist" who will fight at the drop of a hat and if you don't drop yours they'll knock it out of your hand.
> 
> You judge someone comparing their actions against the set of standards they claim to be following. If they don't line up you can fairly say they are not what they claim to be.
> 
> FYI, the standards for all of these religions are not some great hidden secret, you can easily find them.


Very well said. I judge the person not the religion.


----------



## Patchouli




----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> In addition, two years ago a poll was conducted on behalf of World Net Daily that revealed the following:
> 
> Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polledâ¦believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S.
> .


 A poll of 600 people... sponsored by the World Nut Daily?

:hysterical:

Although I wouldn't be surprised to find support for sharia law, at least parts of it. Ask some fundamentalist Jews if they want Rabbinical law, they'd probably say the same thing about their religious law. And ya know what, it makes me no difference what they do in their own community. And I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to judge them all based on the actions of a few crazies. I know some on here try and stoke the fires of hatred, bigotry, prejudice on a daily basis, but I am not having it. 
Muslims have EVERY RIGHT, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. End of story. And for anyone who wants to change the Bill of Rights and let the government tell you what religion you can or cannot be, admit you are a flaming coward and a bigot, and do your best to make that happen, Because you WILL be opposed. 
USA !!! 'Merica!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!! :rock:


----------



## painterswife

greg273 said:


> A poll of 600 people... sponsored by the World Nut Daily?
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> Although I wouldn't be surprised to find support for sharia law, at least parts of it. Ask some fundamentalist Jews if they want Rabbinical law, they'd probably say the same thing about their religious law. And ya know what, it makes me no difference what they do in their own community. And I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to judge them all based on the actions of a few crazies. I know some on here try and stoke the fires of hatred, bigotry, prejudice on a daily basis, but I am not having it.
> Muslims have EVERY RIGHT, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. End of story. And for anyone who wants to change the Bill of Rights and let the government tell you what religion you can or cannot be, admit you are a flaming coward and a bigot, and do your best to make that happen, Because you WILL be opposed.
> USA !!! 'Merica!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!! :rock:


Does not get better than that. I would give it a "post of the ?" Award but that is getting trite.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> A poll of 600 people... sponsored by the World Nut Daily?
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> Although I wouldn't be surprised to find support for sharia law, at least parts of it. Ask some fundamentalist Jews if they want Rabbinical law, they'd probably say the same thing about their religious law. And ya know what, it makes me no difference what they do in their own community. And I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to judge them all based on the actions of a few crazies. I know some on here try and stoke the fires of hatred, bigotry, prejudice on a daily basis, but I am not having it.
> Muslims have EVERY RIGHT, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. End of story. And for anyone who wants to change the Bill of Rights and let the government tell you what religion you can or cannot be, admit you are a flaming coward and a bigot, and do your best to make that happen, Because you WILL be opposed.
> USA !!! 'Merica!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!! :rock:


You draw parrells where none exits.

_Some Muslim sharia have pressed for their decisions to carry legal force in the national law. In contrast, no similar pressure has been exerted by the rabbinical courts. A fundamental principal in democracies is that equality before the law must refer to all citizens, [and] take care to maintain the wall of separation between church and state. By contrast, sharia law has been used to justify breaches or defiance of national, secular law._​
_The nature of the interaction between the Beth Din and the secular court has changed from time to time. The secular courts may be asked to approve or disapprove decisions based on halakah, thus giving the secular courts a limited appellate function over the rabbinical courts But, contrary to sharia courts, the Beth Din has never suggested that its decisions be incorporated into secular law. The Beth Din remains a significant institution for those Jews who choose to use its role to arbitrate on the basis of religious law. One can conclude that the legal decisions emanating from the rabbinical courts interact with those of the secular courts in various ways while the Beth Din takes care to maintain the wall of separation between church and state._​
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2927/sharia-law-secular-law-rabbinical-courts

Maybe you can find where Jews are forcing Rabbinical law in the US. I couldn't..


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> Muslims have EVERY RIGHT, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. End of story.


I'm always amazed at how quick strict constitutionalists are to discard the constitution when it doesn't work for them.


----------



## Guest

7thswan said:


> You think a lefty rag will tell you the truth? The leftys like the control of islam, no diffrent than the nazis -govenrment control.





greg273 said:


> A poll of 600 people... sponsored by the World Nut Daily?
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> Although I wouldn't be surprised to find support for sharia law, at least parts of it. Ask some fundamentalist Jews if they want Rabbinical law, they'd probably say the same thing about their religious law. And ya know what, it makes me no difference what they do in their own community. And I am NOT, I repeat NOT, going to judge them all based on the actions of a few crazies. I know some on here try and stoke the fires of hatred, bigotry, prejudice on a daily basis, but I am not having it.
> Muslims have EVERY RIGHT, AS PER THE US CONSTITUTION TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION. End of story. And for anyone who wants to change the Bill of Rights and let the government tell you what religion you can or cannot be, admit you are a flaming coward and a bigot, and do your best to make that happen, Because you WILL be opposed.
> USA !!! 'Merica!!! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!!! :rock:


Already a Rabinical court in the U.S., it functions within the laws of the U.S. .
http://bethdin.org/


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Because someone calls themselves a car and sleeps in the garage doesn't make them one. There are a lot of people who claim to be members of a lot of religions who do not follow the teachings of that religion.
> 
> I know "Jews" who eat pork and work all weekend. I know "Christians" who are currently in adulterous relationships. I know "Muslims" who eat pork and drink like collage frat boys. I know "Buddhist" who will fight at the drop of a hat and if you don't drop yours they'll knock it out of your hand.
> 
> You judge someone comparing their actions against the set of standards they claim to be following. If they don't line up you can fairly say they are not what they claim to be.
> 
> FYI, the standards for all of these religions are not some great hidden secret, you can easily find them.


I have read law enough to know not all persons see the logic in the wording until it bites them in the rear. I am done with you and the topic, have a good one, shalom.


----------



## painterswife

There is already Islamic Tribunals operating here in the US. They mediate family law with regards to their religion.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


>


Do a comparison throughout history and see which religion has been the more peaceful. And FYI Christians are told if someone doesn't want to even hear about their religion they are to just walk away.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> I have read law enough to know not all persons see the logic in the wording until it bites them in the rear. I am done with you and the topic, have a good one, shalom.


Fine but I never did see you post where in the USC there was a specific wording necessary for war to be declared. I guess I'll have to assume you couldn't find it.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> I have read law enough to know not all persons see the logic in the wording until it bites them in the rear. I am done with you and the topic, have a good one, shalom.


Oh and why did you decide to leave only after I asked for you to explain your logic that leads you to believe the way you do?


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Oh and why did you decide to leave only after I asked for you to explain your logic that leads you to believe the way you do?


The war powers act is codified. I have read it and read a lot of the legal opinions and controversy you are arguing and spinning. As with all people not all will see eye to eye on any subject. You sir are at least persistent. Although 
I disagree with you I see where you form your opinion and have not tried to belittle you by questioning your logistical abilities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> There ya go Watcher spewing circular semantec ramblings.
> 
> *Authorized use of military force is not a formal declaration of war*, although I would argue it does not matter anymore with the war powers act. This nation has become a killing machine for the profit of a few and the enjoyment of those supporting it.


It's nothing BUT a "declaration of war" since there is no formal *wording* required in the Constitution

Bin Laden declared war on the US in the name of Islam



> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> I have read law enough to know not all persons see the logic in the wording until it bites them in the rear. I am done with you and the topic, have a good one, shalom.


So show us the specific wording you think is required for a "declaration of war", unless you are "done" a third time


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I'm wondering what the percentage of Christians who want to follow the Ten Commandments or biblical law is? Is it any surprise that most followers of a religion would choose to follow its law?



Nope.
Read the Commandments, carefully.
Then tell me the "ten punishments" for breaking them.........don't waste too much time, it isn't there.




gapeach said:


> The Bible does not tell me to do the things that the Koran tells the Muslims to do. If the Muslims are going to live in a free country, then they have to give up the Sharia Law.





painterswife said:


> If it is a free country and they want to live their lives by Sharia law, what right do you have to say they can not?





gapeach said:


> Because I am a citizen of the United States and I believe in abiding by our laws and our Constitution.



:rock::nanner:




gapeach said:


> I don't think that is possible in Islam.
> A true, good muslim is one that follow the command of Jihad and follow Sharia, Islam states that the ones who don't are not real Muslims and will be thrown in the hell- fire.
> 
> This is pretty informative reading on Muslims, radical and so called moderates.
> http://www.investigativeproject.org/comments/10547





Nevada said:


> Only a small and radical minority of Muslims believe that.


The last post by Nevada here, is the lie that is believed by some and the one that Muslims will use to deceive us in order to take over. But don't take my word for it, research their history for yourselves.






Again, read the Koran and the Haditha. 
The Koran says NOT to lie, the teachings of Mohammed in the Haditha say exactly the opposite. According to Muslims themselves, they will follow Mohammed.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> The war powers act is codified. I have read it and read a lot of the legal opinions and controversy you are arguing and spinning. As with all people not all will see eye to eye on any subject. You sir are at least persistent. Although
> I disagree with you I see where you form your opinion and have not tried to belittle you by questioning your logistical abilities.


Belittle away, I'm a big boy. I still want to see your logic on how authorizing a war against a nation is not the same as declaring war against it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> My point is that it's no more realistic to expect them to give up the ways of their holy book than it is for you to give up the ways of the Bible. It's just not going to happen.


You are 100% right.
Yet you say to win the was on terror, we have to change their minds & hearts.
Can't have it both ways!
ISIS should be anihilated.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> No facts, just opinions.


Pew research is very respectalbe & polls are considered accurate, not "opinion pieces".


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Pew research is very respectalbe & polls are considered accurate, not "opinion pieces".


Did you read the poll? Not the US.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> The point is as long as it does not go against the laws here you have no choice. Freedom of Religion.
> 
> I think it is disgusting for Christians to try and outlaw same sex marriage.


Can we have maybe one thread w/o your crusade? The majority of Christians don't care what homosexuals do, and would not object to unions that gave the same benefits as marriage but did not call it marriage. Would be a great compromise, hope the SCOTUS realizes that.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Can we have maybe one thread w/o your crusade? The majority of Christians don't care what homosexuals do, and would not object to unions that gave the same benefits as marriage but did not call it marriage. Would be a great compromise, hope the SCOTUS realizes that.


You can choose not to read my posts. Yet you keep parroting the use a different word than marriage again. Are you guilty of what you charge others with? How about you quit with the name calling and body shaming? We might be able to come to a compromise.


----------



## Tricky Grama

http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...rviews-the-muslims-in-america-who-want-sharia

Most telling, in a way, was an interview with a Muslim boy of approximately 14. He exhibited no anger or hatred and admitted that it&#8217;s &#8220;not tough at all&#8221; being Islamic at his school. Nonetheless, he said he preferred sharia law because it yields a &#8220;tighter&#8221; society with less crime. Said he, &#8220;Sharia law, it says that if you steal something, they cut off your hand.&#8230; The smallest things usually have big consequences.&#8221; This may reflect studies showing that &#8212; contrary to the trend of declining faith among Western Christians &#8212; young Muslims are actually more religiously zealous than their elders.

Three of the four respondents who were asked in the video whether they&#8217;d rather live in the United States or Somalia, said the latter. The teen in the basketball cap unabashedly emphasized, &#8220;I&#8217;m not Americanized. I just speak fluent [English].&#8221; He elaborated, &#8220;My culture and my preferences and everything, it&#8217;s still Somali.&#8230; I&#8217;d rather live in a Muslim country with my people.&#8221; The only one who didn&#8217;t answer &#8220;Somalia&#8221; was the 14-year-old &#8212; he said he&#8217;d rather live in Saudi Arabia.


----------



## gapeach

A truly civilized society cannot tolerate aggressive people in it. We're going to have to purge these kinds of people if we want to live in peace.
This PC nonsense is on steroids leading to disaster.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> You are 100% right.
> Yet you say to win the was on terror, we have to change their minds & hearts.
> Can't have it both ways!
> ISIS should be anihilated.


I think they're more pragmatic than that. The things they're fighting for are very down to earth.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> A truly civilized society cannot tolerate aggressive people in it. We're going to have to purge these kinds of people if we want to live in peace.
> This PC nonsense is on steroids leading to disaster.


One sentence says purge all aggressive people and the next says no PC nonsense.

You are going to kill off or banish all that have the gumption to take a stand that does not agree with your religion or politics? I can name a few people through out history that had the same viewpoint as you.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> A truly civilized society cannot tolerate aggressive people in it. We're going to have to purge these kinds of people if we want to live in peace.
> This PC nonsense is on steroids leading to disaster.


You don't consider the USA to be aggressive?


----------



## gapeach

Never said kill!


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> Never said kill!


No you did not. 

Purge is a pretty aggressive word. Plan on getting rid of yourself?


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> You don't consider the USA to be aggressive?


The best defense is a good offense. Seeing as how most of the world looks to the US for funding, relief efforts, food, etc,etc they also look to the US to clean up for them when they face other troubles.

Adieu for today. I have family coming into town and don't want another headache from answering trollish questions.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's nothing BUT a "declaration of war" since there is no formal *wording* required in the Constitution
> 
> Bin Laden declared war on the US in the name of Islam
> 
> 
> 
> So show us the specific wording you think is required for a "declaration of war", unless you are "done" a third time[/QUOTE.
> 
> What ever you say, just curious if there is no such thing why is it written in 50 use 33. As for continuing you are right. I fell victim to the baiting, oops.
> 
> 
> 50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 Â§ 1543 - Reporting requirement
> (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
> *In the absence of a declaration of war*, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced&#8212;
> (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
> (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
> (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
> the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth&#8212;
> (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
> (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
> (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
> 
> 
> In the absence of, would require there to be the same available. As I have written its all semantics, we see it differently.


----------



## Guest

The initial disagreement centered around USC and the absence of the term. I just noted the war powers act the vehicle used for decades to skirt a formal congressional declaration of war.

50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 Â§ 1541 - Purpose and policy
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


----------



## watcher

Tricky Grama said:


> You are 100% right.
> Yet you say to win the was on terror, we have to change their minds & hearts.
> Can't have it both ways!
> ISIS should be anihilated.


I've posted about this before. To win such a war you MUST 'win their hearts and minds'. What most people don't know is there are only two ways to do this.

The first way is to be so nice to the populace that they will be willing to turn to you for protection from the other guys. 

The second is to be so nasty that the populace fears you more than they fear the other guys.

When you are fighting someone who is willing to burn people alive to control the populace the first way isn't going to work.

Think about the following quotes:

_There are times when you have to defend yourself or someone else against relentless evil. And some of those times the only defense that has any hope of succeeding is a one-time use of brutal, devastation force. At such times good people act brutally. Orson Scott Card - Children of the Mind

That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back. Orson Scott Card - Children of the Mind

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at it its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. Robert A Heinlein - Starship Troopers

War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him. But to make him do what you want him to do. Robert A Heinlein - Starship Troopers

_


----------



## watcher

Original post edit to save space



dlmcafee said:


> What ever you say, just curious if there is no such thing why is it written in 50 use 33. As for continuing you are right. I fell victim to the baiting, oops.
> 
> 
> 50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 Â§ 1543 - Reporting requirement
> (a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported In the absence of a declaration of war,
> 
> In the absence of, would require there to be the same available. As I have written its all semantics, we see it differently.


It all hinges on the phrase "declaration of war" and just what is required for to exist. Reread my analogy of needing to declare something useless and apply it to congress and declaring war.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Original post edit to save space
> 
> 
> 
> It all hinges on the phrase "declaration of war" and just what is required for to exist. Reread my analogy of needing to declare something useless and apply it to congress and declaring war.


I will agree that a formal resolution of a declaration of war has become useless with the war powers act, for we are at a perpetual state of warfare. The continuing state is perpetuated by congressional appropriations without using the terms declaring war in their resolutions. the Heritage Foundation in one of thier papers argues the dilemma of the war powers act, interesting read if you have not aready, easily found on Google search.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> I will agree that a formal resolution of a declaration of war has become useless with the war powers act, for we are at a perpetual state of warfare. The continuing state is perpetuated by congressional appropriations without using the terms declaring war in their resolutions. the Heritage Foundation in one of thier papers argues the dilemma of the war powers act, interesting read if you have not aready, easily found on Google search.


Its just political correctness. No one wants to actually say we are officially at war so they use terms like "authorized use of military force".

Its almost like saying a panthera tigris tigris has escaped his bonds instead of saying there's Bengal tiger on the loose. Both mean the same thing one is just seems less scary.


----------



## Tricky Grama

watcher said:


> I've posted about this before. To win such a war you MUST 'win their hearts and minds'. What most people don't know is there are only two ways to do this.
> 
> The first way is to be so nice to the populace that they will be willing to turn to you for protection from the other guys.
> 
> The second is to be so nasty that the populace fears you more than they fear the other guys.
> 
> When you are fighting someone who is willing to burn people alive to control the populace the first way isn't going to work.
> 
> Think about the following quotes:
> 
> _There are times when you have to defend yourself or someone else against relentless evil. And some of those times the only defense that has any hope of succeeding is a one-time use of brutal, devastation force. At such times good people act brutally. Orson Scott Card - Children of the Mind
> 
> That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just prick your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back. Orson Scott Card - Children of the Mind
> 
> Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at it its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. Robert A Heinlein - Starship Troopers
> 
> War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him. But to make him do what you want him to do. Robert A Heinlein - Starship Troopers
> 
> _


Post of the milenneum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism)/#United_States

Muslims represent about 1% of the American population, yet constitute more than 80% of terror convictions.

More than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda, a review of Department of Justice statistics shows.
Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.

On Thursday, the House Homeland Security Committee holds its first hearing into radicalization among Muslim Americans. Critics have taken issue with the focus on one religious minority, but the DOJ list shows that radical Islamists are disproportionately involved in terror-related crimes.

Al-Qaida is involved in the largest number of prosecutions, representing 30 percent of the 228 terror cases involving an identified group. Hizballah-affiliated defendants are involved in 10.5 percent of the cases and Hamas is part of 9 percent. Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Tayyiba was involved in 6.5 percent of the cases.

The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and the Colombian FARC lead the non-Islamist terrorist groups, combining for 14 percent of the total.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism analysis involved reviewing the Justice Department's list of more than 400 successful terrorism-related prosecutions from Sept. 11, 2001, through March 18, 2010. Those cases that demonstrated defendants with a clear Islamist agenda were placed in that category, while those without a clear tie to radical Islam were excluded. In some cases, defendants with Arabic-sounding names were excluded from the Islamist category, because no definitive tie could be made.

To see the individual case listings, and those which were considered Islamist in nature, click here. To see a separate rundown of more than 30 terror-related prosecution activity in 2010 alone, click here.[140]
March 2011
One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.

But, hey, if you have no muslim defense at all, just continue to bring up the crusades, which were wars b/c of the Islam atrocites agianst the rest of the world as well as to take back stolen land. But go ahead, its all ya got. 2 thousand yrs of Isalm atrocites. All ya got to whine about is a war to take back some land a thousand yrs ago. 
Makes for a pretty ridiculous, weak argument.


----------



## Guest

From above

" One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, *though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.*"

Did you not argue the majority approved the tactics?


----------



## greg273

dlmcafee said:


> From above
> 
> " One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, *though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.*"
> 
> Did you not argue the majority approved the tactics?


 You should realize by now that many on this forum cherry-pick the parts they think proves their point, even if its refuted in the next paragraph. And its no use pointing it out to them, they'll just go off on another tangent.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dlmcafee said:


> From above
> 
> " One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, *though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.*"
> 
> Did you not argue the majority approved the tactics?


The majority approve of sharia law.

And btw,1 in 4 is a pretty large # for accepting suicide bombers.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> The majority approve of sharia law.
> 
> And btw,1 in 4 is a pretty large # for accepting suicide bombers.


Read, read , read. You keep quoting parts of the facts and distorting the truth.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> You should realize by now that many on this forum cherry-pick the parts they think proves their point, even if its refuted in the next paragraph. And its no use pointing it out to them, they'll just go off on another tangent.


Greg, was it you in another thread, when discussing the dozens of people hired by TSA who were on the terrorist list, & 95% failure rate of the TSA, said it was the airlines who hired 'em, not TSA?
Just wondering if that was cleared up...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Read, read , read. You keep quoting parts of the facts and distorting the truth.


Distorting this? 25% & are ok w/suicide bombings? Read, read, read. That is distortion?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Distorting this? 25% & are ok w/suicide bombings? Read, read, read. That is distortion?


Read again. 1 in 4 younger. NOT ONE IN 4 of all US muslims. Again you quote what you think backs you up.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Greg, was it you in another thread, when discussing the dozens of people hired by TSA who were on the terrorist list, & 95% failure rate of the TSA, said it was the airlines who hired 'em, not TSA?
> Just wondering if that was cleared up...


 It was cleared up that day, and the facts remain the same. The TSA didn't 'hire terrorists', they failed to vet people working for airlines and airports. Read much tricky??



> At least 73 individuals *employed in the airline industry *should have been disqualified and flagged under terrorism-related activity codes by the TSA, a newly released report by Department of Homeland Security's inspector general shows. *They were employed as airport vendors and by major airlines*, in part because the TSA "is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related categories under current interagency watchlisting policy." The report says that the TSA delegated the vetting of potential hires to commercial airports, who relied on incomplete application dataâsuch as only first initials, or missing Social Security numbers. "TSA lacked assurance that it properly vetted all credential applicants," the report concludes. At the same time, the report praised the TSA's use of existing information to re-vet aviation employees against existing watchlists, including the fact that the agency nominated 300 people to such lists.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/08/tsa-hired-73-from-terror-watchlist0.html


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> Read again. 1 in 4 younger. NOT ONE IN 4 of all US muslims. Again you quote what you think backs you up.


Ummm...maybe you haven't noticed but nearly all Muslim suicide bombers are younger people. So, 1 in 4 Muslims in the prime terrorism age group should be ignored?


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Ummm...maybe you haven't noticed but nearly all Muslim suicide bombers are younger people. So, 1 in 4 Muslims in the prime terrorism age group should be ignored?


Still not what Tricky has been posting on here for days. She keeps posting things and saying they are true when they are not. All the evidence is in her own links proving that she is posting incorrect and false information.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> Do a comparison throughout history and see which religion has been the more peaceful. And FYI Christians are told if someone doesn't want to even hear about their religion they are to just walk away.


Tell that to all of the Jews murdered by Christians for refusing to convert. Or all the ones who had their land stolen or their money by Christians. Who weren't allowed to own anything by good Christian countries who hated them for killing Jesus. Here's a few history eye openers for you: 

Ask a Jewish person what the year 1492 means to them: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/expulsion.html



> *The Jews' expulsion had been the pet project of the Spanish Inquisition*, headed by Father Tomas de Torquemada. Torquemada believed that as long as the Jews remained in Spain, they would influence the tens of thousands of recent Jewish converts to Christianity to continue practicing Judaism. Ferdinand and Isabella rejected Torquemada's demand that the Jews be expelled until January 1492, when the Spanish Army defeated Muslim forces in Granada, thereby restoring the whole of Spain to Christian rule. With their most important project, the country's unification, accomplished, the king and queen concluded that the Jews were expendable. On March 30, they issued the expulsion decree, the order to take effect in precisely four months. The short time span was a great boon to the rest of Spain, as the Jews were forced to liquidate their homes and businesses at absurdly low prices. Throughout those frantic months, Dominican priests actively encouraged Jews to convert to Christianity and thereby gain salvation both in this world and the next.
> 
> *The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet welcomed them warmly*. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?" Among the most unfortunate refugees were those who fled to neighboring Portugal. In 1496, King Manuel of Portugal concluded an agreement to marry Isabella, the daughter of Spain's monarchs. As a condition of the marriage, the Spanish royal family insisted that Portugal expel her Jews. King Manuel agreed, although he was reluctant to lose his affluent and accomplished Jewish community.
> 
> In the end, only eight Portuguese Jews were actually expelled; *tens of thousands of others were forcibly converted to Christianity on pain of death*. The chief rabbi, Simon Maimi, was one of those who refused to convert. He was kept buried in earth up to his neck for seven days until he died. In the final analysis, all of these events took place because of the relentless will of one man, Tomas de Torquemada.


Well look at that a nice Muslim let the Jews into his country after the Christians tried to annihilate them. 

Here's a really interesting study on history written by Jews about Jews. The creation of Islam was the best thing that ever happened to them post the destruction of the Temple. Christianity not so much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michaellevin/why-did-jews-become-money_b_4046093.html


> The rise of the Islamic empire: surprisingly, good for the Jews.
> When Muhammad appeared in the seventh century, Jews began to move from farms into new Moslem-built cities including Baghdad and Damascus. There they went into trades that proved far more lucrative than farming, most notably international trade and money lending. In those arenas, Jews had enormous advantages: universal literacy; a common language and religious culture; and the ability to have contracts enforced, even from a distance of thousands of miles.
> The Moslem world then stretched from the Spain and Portugal to halfway across Asia. Anywhere in the Arab ambit, Jews could move, trade, or relocate freely and benefit from their extensive religious and family networks. According to thousand-year-old documents found in the Cairo Genizah, business documents linking Jewish traders across the Arab world would have Jewish court decisions written on the back. So Jews could send money or goods thousands of miles, certain their investments would be safe.
> European Christianity from the year 1,000: not so good for the Jews.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Tell that to all of the Jews murdered by Christians for refusing to convert. Or all the ones who had their land stolen or their money by Christians. Who weren't allowed to own anything by good Christian countries who hated them for killing Jesus. Here's a few history eye openers for you:


As I have stated calling yourself a car doesn't make you one. Anyone who calls himself a Christian and does not follow the teachings of Christ is clearly not a Christian. 

I give you Matthew 10:14 _If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. _

Jesus himself spoke those words. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where He says after that go back and kill them. Or you should go back later and force them to even listen much less accept. If you can show me where Christ or anyone in the New Testament even suggested using violence to spread Christ's teachings I'd love to see it. 

The problem the Muslims have is there are too many passages in the Quran which show that the "radicals" are actually following the teachings of Muhammad. Its the "moderate" ones who are actually not following his teachings.


----------



## JeffreyD

How far back in history are we going to go?

What were the Crusades about? How many Christians did the muslims kill?

What about in say the last 50 years? What about the last 10 years?

What about Stalin, Pol Pot, Gengis Kahn, etc..?


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> The problem the Muslims have is there are too many passages in the Quran which show that the "radicals" are actually following the teachings of Muhammad. Its the "moderate" ones who are actually not following his teachings.


 I'm glad the Christians don't practice the warlike edicts in the Old Testament. Such as this gem from Deuteronomy talking about killing the 'infidels'...



> If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, âLet us go and worship other godsâ (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,* you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,both its people and its livestock. *You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.


 Any chance that the vast majority of muslims don't practice the more violent passages in thier book? Seems to be the case.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> I'm glad the Christians don't practice the warlike edicts in the Old Testament. Such as this gem from Deuteronomy talking about killing the 'infidels'...
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance that the vast majority of muslims don't practice the more violent passages in thier book? Seems to be the case.


That verse has been quoted before......:bored:
It's very provocative, certainly brutal and violent.......
Now, care to tell me *exactly* what the specific circumstances were, which are well defined in the context of that passage?

I already know, and already explained this before with the preceding verses that were left out, I'm just wondering if you also know this, but are instigating for the purpose of making a very poor and actually false debate point?


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> That verse has been quoted before......:bored:
> It's very provocative, certainly brutal and violent.......
> Now, care to tell me *exactly* what the specific circumstances were, which are well defined in the context of that passage?
> 
> I already know, and already explained this before with the preceding verses that were left out, I'm just wondering if you also know this, but are instigating for the purpose of making a very poor and actually false debate point?


A lot of religious texts are handle the same way by people. Many find crib notes on the internet or quote somebody who claims that's how it is and things just spiral from there.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> As I have stated calling yourself a car doesn't make you one. Anyone who calls himself a Christian and does not follow the teachings of Christ is clearly not a Christian.
> 
> I give you Matthew 10:14 _If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. _
> 
> Jesus himself spoke those words. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where He says after that go back and kill them. Or you should go back later and force them to even listen much less accept. If you can show me where Christ or anyone in the New Testament even suggested using violence to spread Christ's teachings I'd love to see it.
> 
> The problem the Muslims have is there are too many passages in the Quran which show that the "radicals" are actually following the teachings of Muhammad. Its the "moderate" ones who are actually not following his teachings.


That is the whole point in a nutshell. Too many people like to pull a verse out of context and act like they know what they're talking about, but it takes sincere effort to study before you actually DO know what you're talking about.
The contrast in the lives of Jesus and Mohammed are like day and night, and the differences in those who follow their examples are just as obvious.


----------



## farmrbrown

wr said:


> A lot of religious texts are handle the same way by people. Many find crib notes on the internet or quote somebody who claims that's how it is and things just spiral from there.


I agree. 
That's why I've made an effort to study and verify claims that are made "on behalf" of various religions or groups.

In the Koran there are clear directives that many of today's muslims simply ignore - the radical, violent groups. They seem to concentrate on Mohammed's later writings where *he* became increasingly violent and worldly.

Simply put, when ANY religion seeks to dominate or convert thru violence, they have lost any credibility with reasonable people.

I doubt there are any among us today who look back at the atrocities of the past and think they are defensible.
What I DO see today are large groups of people committing violence and atrocities with the support (financially and otherwise) of even MORE people.

I don't care WHO they are, supposed "allies", former enemies or even people in this country and I don't care what faith they claim. They should be exposed publicly and ostracized with all our might.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> That is the whole point in a nutshell. Too many people like to pull a verse out of context and act like they know what they're talking about


 And ill-informed evangelicals would never do such a thing? Why I do believe I've seen plenty of that from both sides...
Glossing over the violence in the Old Testament, saying its 'from a different time', yet thinking all the warlike verses in the Koran are followed by ALL the Muslims isn't right.


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> I agree.
> That's why I've made an effort to study and verify claims that are made "on behalf" of various religions or groups.
> 
> In the Koran there are clear directives that many of today's muslims simply ignore - the radical, violent groups. They seem to concentrate on Mohammed's later writings where *he* became increasingly violent and worldly.
> 
> Simply put, when ANY religion seeks to dominate or convert thru violence, they have lost any credibility with reasonable people.
> 
> I doubt there are any among us today who look back at the atrocities of the past and think they are defensible.
> What I DO see today are large groups of people committing violence and atrocities with the support (financially and otherwise) of even MORE people.
> 
> I don't care WHO they are, supposed "allies", former enemies or even people in this country and I don't care what faith they claim. They should be exposed publicly and ostracized with all our might.


I do feel that anyone who financially supports terrorists should be held accountable but on the other hand, the US has supported more than a few that came back to bite them. Politics makes for some funny bedfellows.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> And ill-informed evangelicals would never do such a thing? Why I do believe I've seen plenty of that from both sides...
> Glossing over the violence in the Old Testament, saying its 'from a different time', yet thinking all the warlike verses in the Koran are followed by ALL the Muslims isn't right.


Not just a different time, but specific places, people and circumstances, such as that verse from Deuteronomy.
Without the context, it could seem to be an invitation to destroy any towns, anywhere for the reasons given. In reality, that directive was to the Israelites about their OWN people within their OWN borders and only those who had made the covenant with God......and then broken it. The Law was not for foreigners or countries outside their border, and no one was to be coerced.

None of it should be glossed over, or misrepresented.


----------



## Marshloft

greg273 said:


> And ill-informed evangelicals would never do such a thing? Why I do believe I've seen plenty of that from both sides...
> Glossing over the violence in the Old Testament, saying its 'from a different time', yet thinking all the warlike verses in the Koran are followed by ALL the Muslims isn't right.


 You have a point Greg, but its misguided.
Its context, if you don't understand the history, if you don't understand God's character, you will fail to understand the context in which God's word was written and to whom and for what purpose.
When idiots take God's
word out of context and that goes to seed, innocent lives that didn't study for themselves get injured, physically, mentally and spiritually injured. Eventually, society will put those yahoos in their place and lockem up.
So this crap about "old testament" has run its course. It doesn't hold water anymore.
You're a very smart and astute individual Greg, and i respect that. But when someone such as yourself has to throw the "old testament" in our face. I know you have nothing else.
G.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> As I have stated calling yourself a car doesn't make you one. Anyone who calls himself a Christian and does not follow the teachings of Christ is clearly not a Christian.
> 
> I give you Matthew 10:14 _If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. _
> 
> Jesus himself spoke those words. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where He says after that go back and kill them. Or you should go back later and force them to even listen much less accept. If you can show me where Christ or anyone in the New Testament even suggested using violence to spread Christ's teachings I'd love to see it.
> 
> The problem the Muslims have is there are too many passages in the Quran which show that the "radicals" are actually following the teachings of Muhammad. Its the "moderate" ones who are actually not following his teachings.


You must have bypassed the Old Testament then eh? All those kill or convert passages? Is it not better to threaten people with death and save their souls then let them go to Hell? I believe that was the crux of the theology behind the Inquisition. 

The funniest thing about Christians is how you will try any possible way to get around or ignore or obfuscate the truly horrible things your religion has committed. You said historically Christianity was not as violent as Islam. I proved it and now you want to trot out the but those weren't REAL Christians argument.


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> That verse has been quoted before......:bored:
> It's very provocative, certainly brutal and violent.......
> Now, care to tell me *exactly* what the specific circumstances were, which are well defined in the context of that passage?
> 
> I already know, and already explained this before with the preceding verses that were left out, I'm just wondering if you also know this, but are instigating for the purpose of making a very poor and actually false debate point?


I would love to watch you try and explain that all away. It's okay because God commanded it?


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> Not just a different time, but specific places, people and circumstances, such as that verse from Deuteronomy.
> Without the context, it could seem to be an invitation to destroy any towns, anywhere for the reasons given. In reality, that directive was to the Israelites about their OWN people within their OWN borders and only those who had made the covenant with God......and then broken it. The Law was not for foreigners or countries outside their border, and no one was to be coerced.
> 
> None of it should be glossed over, or misrepresented.


Okay let's try a few more passages shall we? Keep in mind none of these passages are talking about Israelites. All foreigners cut down for the evil of worshipping idols and not the one true God. 



> 1 Samuel 15:1 And Samuel said to Saul, câThe Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, âI have noted what Amalek did to Israel din opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and edevote to destruction1 all that they have. Do not spare them, fbut kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.ââ


King Saul lost his throne for showing a little mercy and not killing all the livestock. 



> Numbers 31:1The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 nâAvenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterward you shall obe gathered to your people.â 3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, âArm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the Lord's vengeance on Midian. 4 You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war.â 5 So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand parmed for war. 6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and qthe trumpets for the alarm in his hand. 7 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and rkilled every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, sEvi, Rekem, tZur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed uBalaam the son of Beor with the sword. 9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their vencampments, they burned with fire, 11 wand took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast. 12 Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on xthe plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho. 13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with ythe officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, âHave you zlet all the women live? 16 Behold, athese, bon Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of cPeor, and so dthe plague came among the congregation of the Lord. *17 Now therefore, ekill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him fkeep alive for yourselves.*


Kill everyone including male babies but keep the little girls for yourselves. Nice. 



> Deuteronomy 2:But uSihon the king of mHeshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God vhardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day. 31 And the Lord said to me, âBehold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.â 32 Then wSihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. 33 And xthe Lord our God gave him over to us, and ywe defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34 *And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction2 every zcity, men, women, and children. We left no survivors.*


That's one of my favorites, God makes him say no by hardening his heart and they get to annihilate everyone including the babies.



> Deut. 20:10âWhen you draw near to a city to fight against it, poffer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, qyou shall put all its males to the sword, 14 rbut the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you sshall take as plunder for yourselves. And tyou shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 But uin the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but vyou shall devote them to complete destruction,1 the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that wthey may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you xsin against the Lord your God. 19 âWhen you besiege a city for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, yyou shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them. You may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Are the trees in the field human, that they should be besieged by you?


This one is fun: if the people offer your peace terms you don't have to kill them you just get to work them to death as slaves. If they fight you kill the men but you get to keep the women and the kiddies for your pleasure and the animals too. But there are a few peoples who just get annihilated men, women and children because they might woo you away to their evil religion. The only thing God has mercy on there are the fruit trees. You can't make this stuff up.

I know the Bible from start to finish. I have read it cover to cover multiple times. I used to be a Christian and I loved the Bible so well I learned Greek and Hebrew to understand it better. So none of this pulling stuff out of context. This is Yahweh the vengeful God of the Old Testament and he killed everybody who didn't follow him. His own people got killed for breaking the rules along with their whole families right down to the babies. Foreigners with other religions got put to the sword. You either converted, kept the Law perfectly or you died. Or got made a slave or got raped by the new husband you never wanted and who just murdered your whole family.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> I would love to watch you try and explain that all away. It's okay because God commanded it?


Yes, I believe you would enjoy mocking a child of God, many do.
But, I would never "explain it away" and I deny that either God or I ever said it was "ok".
Taking the time to explain the historical circumstances as well as the spiritual ones, would be a wasted effort, I think.
The Word speaks for itself, for those who care to study it, God needs no defense from little old me.

It did bring to mind a haunting vision of the Canaanites of old, when ISIS was burning captives alive earlier this year. Of course back then it had gotten to the point of burning their own children as a sacrifice to Moleck.
I guess even God has a limit to his tolerance of such things.........


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I believe you would enjoy mocking a child of God, many do.
> But, I would never "explain it away" and I deny that either God or I ever said it was "ok".
> Taking the time to explain the historical circumstances as well as the spiritual ones, would be a wasted effort, I think.
> The Word speaks for itself, for those who care to study it, God needs no defense from little old me.
> 
> It did bring to mind a haunting vision of the Canaanites of old, when ISIS was burning captives alive earlier this year. Of course back then it had gotten to the point of burning their own children as a sacrifice to Moleck.
> I guess even God has a limit to his tolerance of such things.........


Trust me I know all about the historical circumstances and the spiritual ones and all of that. In the end the God of the bible is just as violent and just as harsh in his laws and just as hard hearted to non-believers as the one of the Qur'an. You can call it a necessary evil if it makes you sleep better at night but you can't prove your God or your religion is any kinder.


----------



## farmrbrown

No, I can't really prove anything. All any of us can do is try to prove who we are by showing love to our fellow man. Those that kill and do violence to others have proven to the world what is in their hearts.
You will know them by their fruits..........


Honestly, I can see your contempt quite clearly for religion in general and it has been used to harm many throughout history, but do you really think that Christians and Jews or Hindus and Buddhists for that matter, are talking their children into strapping on explosives and detonating themselves in the name of their god?

I admit I miss a lot of current news, but I can't remember hearing anything like that about another major religion and certainly not killing their own children in the numbers that we see in Islam.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Read again. 1 in 4 younger. NOT ONE IN 4 of all US muslims. Again you quote what you think backs you up.


Never NEVER said 1 in 4 of ALL muslims. 1st post about this I quoted that, of the under 30, 1 in 4 believe in suicide bombings. Which, BTW, is 25%

Maybe that is why non-conserves don't believe the pools such as Pew? None know how to interpret the polls?


----------



## HDRider

OK, we have let this thing get ripe.

Can the 20% who say we are not at war with ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda or whatever radical Islam calls itself, explain the situation we find ourselves in today. I don't want Nevada or Greg telling me who is at fault.

I want to know from you 20%ers:
Are we (Americans) in a fight? 
Who are we (Americans) fighting?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> It was cleared up that day, and the facts remain the same. The TSA didn't 'hire terrorists', they failed to vet people working for airlines and airports. Read much tricky??
> 
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/08/tsa-hired-73-from-terror-watchlist0.html


It was the TSA who vetted them for hiring!!


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> And ill-informed evangelicals would never do such a thing? Why I do believe I've seen plenty of that from both sides...
> Glossing over the violence in the Old Testament, saying its 'from a different time', yet thinking all the warlike verses in the Koran are followed by ALL the Muslims isn't right.


Who said ALL muslims? If this is your argument,you're all never gonna win it b/c NO ONE said ALL muslims. NO ONE. If someone does, please QUOTE that post so the rest of us can post the %s.

So far, in the US, there are NOT AS MANY muslims who believe in suicide bombings, who believe that those who draw muhammed should be murdered as there are in other countries...however there are enuf to make one nervous!
Who are those 25% of younger than 30 men who believe that is justified?

We've also posted that a huge majority of muslims all over the world agree w/sharia law. We've posted the pics of results of sharia law. 
I'd like to ask how anyone can defend any group who believes in this. If so, why?

Or if you want we can go back to 1492 & talk about what has happened 550 yrs ago! Most folks who are up on current events, who want to make this world a better place, who would like peace, will concentrate on happenings at least in the last less than 100 yrs. We could talk about who hit who w/clubs in the cave man age too. It is just as relevent as the crusades. 
I'm wondering- do Christians & Jews get along NOW?? Are they continuing to murder one another? Did anyone become more civilized? 
Unlike Islam followers.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> And ill-informed evangelicals would never do such a thing? Why I do believe I've seen plenty of that from both sides...
> Glossing over the violence in the Old Testament, saying its 'from a different time', yet thinking all the warlike verses in the Koran are followed by ALL the Muslims isn't right.


We're in the here & now! Dredging up stuff -wars, etc, of 1000 yrs ago for what purpose? You & some others say it over&over&over, is it b/c you have no defense for why Islam is murdering innocents TODAY? If you insist on keeping score from 1000 yrs ago you'd still lose, your defense of Islam is still far more murderous than Christians. 

How about a poll of how many Christians follow & believe in THOSE Old Testament sayings? 
How 'bout for once you compare apples to apples?

How on earth does anyone compare Christian beliefs today w/Islam beliefs TODAY but use the beliefs of those living 1000 yrs ago? Just how does that compute?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> You must have bypassed the Old Testament then eh? All those kill or convert passages? Is it not better to threaten people with death and save their souls then let them go to Hell? I believe that was the crux of the theology behind the Inquisition.
> 
> The funniest thing about Christians is how you will try any possible way to get around or ignore or obfuscate the truly horrible things your religion has committed. You said historically Christianity was not as violent as Islam. I proved it and now you want to trot out the but those weren't REAL Christians argument.


OK, I'll ask you too.
How is it even a comparison of the beliefs of those 2100+ yrs ago & those of today? How can you compare the atrocities of Islam NOW w/anything done in the OLD Testament? There were NO CHRISTIANS 2100 yrs ago. 
Islam is still commanding their followers to murder innocents. TODAY. 

Christian means follower of Christ. That's why we have B.C. and A.D. on our calendars.


----------



## gapeach

Tricky Grama said:


> It was the TSA who vetted them for hiring!!


 *TSA Fails to ID 73 Airport Employees With Links to Terrorism*

by Halimah Abdullah 
A new Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report found that the Transportation Security Administration failed to identify 73 aviation employees with active clearance badges with links to terrorism. 
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tsa-fails-identify-73-employees-terror-watch-lists-n371601

Some people refuse to acknowledge someone else being right when they are wrong.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> OK, I'll ask you too.
> How is it even a comparison of the beliefs of those 2100+ yrs ago & those of today? How can you compare the atrocities of Islam NOW w/anything done in the OLD Testament? There were NO CHRISTIANS 2100 yrs ago.
> Islam is still commanding their followers to murder innocents. TODAY.
> 
> Christian means follower of Christ. That's why we have B.C. and A.D. on our calendars.


And all those European tribesman weren't influenced at all in their choice of religion by the roman leggionaires who had just run roughshod over them, or the Christian priests that accompanied them. All those heathen Americans weren't encouraged to adopt Christianity by those Spanish conquistadors who helped set up the missions. Or the French and British soldiers and the priests who accompanied them as they fought wars in this country to see whose country and religion would predominate. Or our own cavalry who helped clear the west of savages for those good, god fearing settlers. I forgot that whole couple of hundred years of warfare in Europe as that reformation thing got sorted out. It's easy to look back and forgive your own sides excesses after they've or oven successful in mostly eliminating or co-opting the other side(s). 

I'm not exclusing the atrocities happening around the world in the name of Islam today. Neither do I excuse those that happened in the past in the defense and expansion of Christianity. Nor those who advocate atrocities in the defense of it today.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And all those European tribesman weren't influenced at all in their choice of religion by the roman leggionaires who had just run roughshod over them, or the Christian priests that accompanied them. All those heathen Americans weren't encouraged to adopt Christianity by those Spanish conquistadors who helped set up the missions. Or the French and British soldiers and the priests who accompanied them as they fought wars in this country to see whose country and religion would predominate. Or our own cavalry who helped clear the west of savages for those good, god fearing settlers. I forgot that whole couple of hundred years of warfare in Europe as that reformation thing got sorted out. It's easy to look back and forgive your own sides excesses after they've or oven successful in mostly eliminating or co-opting the other side(s).
> 
> I'm not *excusing the atrocities happening around the world in the name of Islam* today. Neither do I excuse those that happened in the past in the defense and expansion of Christianity. Nor those who advocate atrocities in the defense of it today.


It's just their turn, right?


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> No, I can't really prove anything. All any of us can do is try to prove who we are by showing love to our fellow man. Those that kill and do violence to others have proven to the world what is in their hearts.
> You will know them by their fruits..........
> 
> 
> Honestly, I can see your contempt quite clearly for religion in general and it has been used to harm many throughout history, but do you really think that Christians and Jews or Hindus and Buddhists for that matter, are talking their children into strapping on explosives and detonating themselves in the name of their god?
> 
> I admit I miss a lot of current news, but I can't remember hearing anything like that about another major religion and certainly not killing their own children in the numbers that we see in Islam.


Oh we are definitely seeing the love around here. 

We have seen plenty of situations where people in wars have used children to fight. I don't believe the Vietnamese were Muslim were they? I do seem to remember a Children's Crusade though back in Christian history. That ended rather badly for all of the children.....


----------



## Patchouli

mmoetc said:


> And all those European tribesman weren't influenced at all in their choice of religion by the roman leggionaires who had just run roughshod over them, or the Christian priests that accompanied them. All those heathen Americans weren't encouraged to adopt Christianity by those Spanish conquistadors who helped set up the missions. Or the French and British soldiers and the priests who accompanied them as they fought wars in this country to see whose country and religion would predominate. Or our own cavalry who helped clear the west of savages for those good, god fearing settlers. I forgot that whole couple of hundred years of warfare in Europe as that reformation thing got sorted out. It's easy to look back and forgive your own sides excesses after they've or oven successful in mostly eliminating or co-opting the other side(s).
> 
> I'm not exclusing the atrocities happening around the world in the name of Islam today. Neither do I excuse those that happened in the past in the defense and expansion of Christianity. Nor those who advocate atrocities in the defense of it today.


Exactly. And there are still Christians today in other countries committing the same acts that Muslims are and there are Christian extremists still even in Europe and America. It never really stopped it just wound down a little.


----------



## 7thswan

The late Christopher Hitchens called Hirsi Ali, whose former religion forced female circumcision on her, someone "of arresting and hypnotizing beauty," and "a charismatic figure" who writes "with quite astonishing humor and restraint." In 2005, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

She famously said, "Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can." 

Her latest book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, was published in March by Harper. (It was reviewed by Katherine Ernst in City Journal.)

"My argument is that it is foolish to insist, as our leaders habitually do, that the violent acts of radical Islamists can be divorced from the religious ideals that inspire them," she writes in Heretic. She continues:

Instead we must acknowledge that they are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in Islam itself, in the holy book of the Qur&#8217;an as well as the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad contained in the hadith.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible terms: Islam is not a religion of peace.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_grave_warning_to_america.html#ixzz3csIvT500 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> I'm glad the Christians don't practice the warlike edicts in the Old Testament. Such as this gem from Deuteronomy talking about killing the 'infidels'...
> 
> Yep, we follow a slightly different rule book.
> 
> 
> Any chance that the vast majority of muslims don't practice the more violent passages in thier book? Seems to be the case.


Sure. Some of the eat pork and drink booze as well. But even if its only a small percentage of those who claim to be muslim are truly following the teachings in their holy book its still a LOT of people. When you have 1,600,000,000 people claiming to be muslim (thanks google) even 1% of them is a good sized crowd. FYI that works out to being 16,000,000 people who believe that they should kill anyone who doesn't follow Islam.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> You must have bypassed the Old Testament then eh? All those kill or convert passages? Is it not better to threaten people with death and save their souls then let them go to Hell? I believe that was the crux of the theology behind the Inquisition.
> 
> The funniest thing about Christians is how you will try any possible way to get around or ignore or obfuscate the truly horrible things your religion has committed. You said historically Christianity was not as violent as Islam. I proved it and now you want to trot out the but those weren't REAL Christians argument.


A lot of thing have been done by people claiming to be Christians. But the fact that all of it can be shown to go DIRECTLY against the teachings of Christ shows that those people were not true Christians.

No true Christian would believe that you can "save" someone but using the threat of or actual torture to make them accept Christ. To think that is to think you are God yourself because you have the ability to save that one but not the other.

Can you say the same about the horrible things which were and are being done by people claiming to be followers of Islam? Show me one passage where it says what the Bible says about if someone refuses to believe.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Trust me I know all about the historical circumstances and the spiritual ones and all of that. In the end the God of the bible is just as violent and just as harsh in his laws and just as hard hearted to non-believers as the one of the Qur'an. You can call it a necessary evil if it makes you sleep better at night but you can't prove your God or your religion is any kinder.


You claim that the Bible teaches Christians to be violent so surely you have passages to back that up. Care to tell me how violent Christ and His followers were when the Romans came to capture Him and crucify Him? Care to show me just where in the Bible it says that Christians should use force to make people believe? 

I'll tell you right now that God is vengeful. If you stick your finger in His eye and spit in the empty socket He is going to extract a horrible cost from you. Most likely it will not be on this earth and there's no chance He will use a Christian to do it. Yet He is also loving enough to overlook your actions if you, in your heart of hearts, realize your error and ask for forgiveness.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> And all those European tribesman weren't influenced at all in their choice of religion by the roman leggionaires who had just run roughshod over them, or the Christian priests that accompanied them. All those heathen Americans weren't encouraged to adopt Christianity by those Spanish conquistadors who helped set up the missions. Or the French and British soldiers and the priests who accompanied them as they fought wars in this country to see whose country and religion would predominate. Or our own cavalry who helped clear the west of savages for those good, god fearing settlers. I forgot that whole couple of hundred years of warfare in Europe as that reformation thing got sorted out. It's easy to look back and forgive your own sides excesses after they've or oven successful in mostly eliminating or co-opting the other side(s).


Sorry but those people weren't trying to spread the Word of God, they were trying to make as much money and gain as much power as possible.

Only a true fool believes he can force someone to think or believe something. You can force some people to say things you want or do things you wish them to do but that's all.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> A lot of thing have been done by people claiming to be Christians. But the fact that all of it can be shown to go DIRECTLY against the teachings of Christ shows that those people were not true Christians.
> 
> No true Christian would believe that you can "save" someone but using the threat of or actual torture to make them accept Christ. To think that is to think you are God yourself because you have the ability to save that one but not the other.
> 
> Can you say the same about the horrible things which were and are being done by people claiming to be followers of Islam? Show me one passage where it says what the Bible says about if someone refuses to believe.


I posted a ton of bible passages.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> You claim that the Bible teaches Christians to be violent so surely you have passages to back that up. Care to tell me how violent Christ and His followers were when the Romans came to capture Him and crucify Him? Care to show me just where in the Bible it says that Christians should use force to make people believe?
> 
> I'll tell you right now that God is vengeful. If you stick your finger in His eye and spit in the empty socket He is going to extract a horrible cost from you. Most likely it will not be on this earth and there's no chance He will use a Christian to do it. Yet He is also loving enough to overlook your actions if you, in your heart of hearts, realize your error and ask for forgiveness.


I posted the bible verses for goodness sakes. You went right past them. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7471764-post269.html


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> I posted a ton of bible passages.


I must have missed them. What's the number of the post? I want to read them.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> I posted the bible verses for goodness sakes. You went right past them.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7471764-post269.html


A swing and a miss there. See those are Israelites/Jews. Just as Christians don't have to skip the bacon or slit a bull's throat they also have different teachings on violence. I can only remember two places in the New Testament (which is where our "rules" come from) which even suggest violence is OK. One is where Christ drove the money lenders out of the Temple and the other is where He told His followers if they did not have a sword they should sell their cloak and buy one.

For a Christian the Old Testament is studied to try to lean God's heart, or how He "thinks" not to learn how we are to act. We are shown He treats those who reject Him harshly. We are shown the things He hates and the things He loves. 

Now if you have something which shows that Christ tells He's followers to do violent acts then you'll have something. There are too many verses where He tells us just the opposite and where He showed us that as well. Remember what He did when Peter cut off a guy's ear trying to keep them from taking Christ? He rebuked Peter and healed the guy. Sounds like the type of guy who is going to suggest pouring boiling lead over someone's belly until they repent their sins and accept Him as their Savior doesn't it.


----------



## greg273

gapeach said:


> *TSA Fails to ID 73 Airport Employees With Links to Terrorism*
> 
> by Halimah Abdullah
> A new Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report found that the Transportation Security Administration failed to identify 73 aviation employees with active clearance badges with links to terrorism.
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tsa-fails-identify-73-employees-terror-watch-lists-n371601
> 
> Some people refuse to acknowledge someone else being right when they are wrong.


 Dang you still don't get it. Gaprech said TSA was hiring terrorists, this was pointed out as FALSE. And geuss what, it remains false. You do understand the difference of 'airport employees' and TSA employees, right? We've only been over this 5 times now.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> Dang you still don't get it. Gaprech said TSA was hiring terrorists, this was pointed out as FALSE. And geuss what, it remains false. You do understand the difference of 'airport employees' and TSA employees, right? We've only been over this 5 times now.


Then stop. You have all the power to stop. I grant that to you.


----------



## gapeach

Who is Gaprech?


----------



## 7thswan

greg273 said:


> Dang you still don't get it. Gaprech said TSA was hiring terrorists, this was pointed out as FALSE. And geuss what, it remains false. You do understand the difference of 'airport employees' and TSA employees, right? We've only been over this 5 times now.


scuse me, why do we have Tsa if we have open borders? A joke, right? Ya, a joke to anyone with common sence,ha ha , more control mind cluster funk from the libs. Ha. Ha. ya yous so smartz.


----------



## greg273

Marshloft said:


> You have a point Greg, but its misguided.
> Its context, if you don't understand the history, if you don't understand God's character, you will fail to understand the context in which God's word was written and to whom and for what purpose.
> G.


 I get the history of the Old Testament, it is a chronicle of the Hebrews, a history and instructions of people doing what they had to do to survive, Hence the violence. Hence the harshness of the laws... Now if someone, say a misguided fundamentalist, wanted to take the violent exhortations at face value, they'd be as dangerous as the radical jihadis. 
I am still not going to judge an entire group of people because of the few crazies. Do I distrust Muslims more? Sure, I can be as prejudiced as the next guy, but I am still going to do my best to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. We're in it together, and should anyone get out of hand, I can thank God and the 2nd amendment for giving me another means to counter that.


----------



## greg273

7thswan said:


> scuse me, why do we have Tsa if we have open borders? A joke, right? .


 I dunno, ask those who voted for TSA. Or start another thread discussing the ineptitude of big-government feel-good so-called solutions like the TSA.


----------



## Tricky Grama

7thswan said:


> The late Christopher Hitchens called Hirsi Ali, whose former religion forced female circumcision on her, someone "of arresting and hypnotizing beauty," and "a charismatic figure" who writes "with quite astonishing humor and restraint." In 2005, Time magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
> 
> She famously said, "Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can."
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_grave_warning_to_america.html#ixzz3csIvT500
> Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Post of the day award.
Wow, she obviously read some of my posts! "Islam is a theocratic political group, bent on setting up a world caliphate..."
There's several educated, outspoken former muslims who write as well as give talks saying the very same. Sure would like to see more.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> I posted a ton of bible passages.


What makes you think there were Christians back in the times of the Old Testament. 
Got a calendar?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> I get the history of the Old Testament, it is a chronicle of the Hebrews, a history and instructions of people doing what they had to do to survive, Hence the violence. Hence the harshness of the laws... Now if someone, say a misguided fundamentalist, wanted to take the violent exhortations at face value, they'd be as dangerous as the radical jihadis.
> I am still not going to judge an entire group of people because of the few crazies. Do I distrust Muslims more? Sure, I can be as prejudiced as the next guy, but I am still going to do my best to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. We're in it together, and should anyone get out of hand, I can thank God and the 2nd amendment for giving me another means to counter that.


If IF, if...IF the queen had cajones she'd be the king.
So then I could say IF atheists would band together & one of 2 were violent, maybe a riot would break out? You are still saying a 'few'. I guess there's no set # for 'a few'. B/c if you'd go by %, there's a LOT of jihadists. Many 'have not yet begun to fight'.

Sometimes non-conservatives don't know when to stop digging.

ETA: I commend you for your golden rule attitude. Sometimes we have to look beyond. I didn't quote the #s & the political consequences Islam has had on Britain but its really worth looking at. They need to get proactive b/4 they are a Islamist state.


----------



## mmoetc

watcher said:


> A lot of thing have been done by people claiming to be Christians. But the fact that all of it can be shown to go DIRECTLY against the teachings of Christ shows that those people were not true Christians.
> 
> No true Christian would believe that you can "save" someone but using the threat of or actual torture to make them accept Christ. To think that is to think you are God yourself because you have the ability to save that one but not the other.
> 
> Can you say the same about the horrible things which were and are being done by people claiming to be followers of Islam? Show me one passage where it says what the Bible says about if someone refuses to believe.


And yet those things "done in the name of Christianity" brought us to where we are today. Those things "done in the name of Christianity" were largely done by those who would claim they were Christian and righteous in their own time. It's easy to dismiss the sins of the father and take no responsibility for them. Hundreds of years from now historians will write the histories of today. It may well be, and it is my hope, that those histories will reflect that the violent extremists weren't true Muslims and the things they did in the name of Islam were wrong. Hopefully it will be a much more peaceful world.

You've often talked of absolute war. Of fighting to win. Of making the lives of those conquered so uncomfortable that they fear rising up. How does this square with the prince of peace going quietly to the cross and accepting his fate. How is that a Christian value?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And yet those things "done in the name of Christianity" brought us to where we are today. Those things "done in the name of Christianity" were largely done by those who would claim they were Christian and righteous in their own time. It's easy to dismiss the sins of the father and take no responsibility for them. Hundreds of years from now historians will write the histories of today. It may well be, and it is my hope, that those histories will reflect that the violent extremists weren't true Muslims and the things they did in the name of Islam were wrong. Hopefully it will be a much more peaceful world.
> 
> *You've often talked of absolute war. Of fighting to win. Of making the lives of those conquered so uncomfortable that they fear rising up. How does this square with the prince of peace going quietly to the cross and accepting his fate. How is that a Christian value?*



You'll have to read the end of the Book to answer your question............

That was not His mission when He was born, lived and died here.
But He shall return.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> It may well be, and it is my hope, that those histories will reflect that the violent extremists weren't true Muslims and the things they did in the name of Islam were wrong. Hopefully it will be a much more peaceful world.


The problem is that's not possible unless you don't tell the truth. 

As I have pointed out you CAN NOT take the teachings of Christ and show where He preached the use any kind of violence to spread the Word. You can't take the teachings of the writers of the New Testament and show where they preached the use any kind of violence to spread the Word. That is how you can show that those who do violence in the name of Christ are not true followers of Christ.

There are many places in the teachings of Muhammad where he preached the use of violence to spread Islam. Therefore the only way to show that those who claim to be followers of Muhammad and are using violence to spread Islam is to lie about what their prophet actually told them to do.

Love is mentioned 400 - 800 times in the Bible, depending on the translation.

Care to guess how many times its in the Quran? 10 to 95 times.

I did a quick google search and could not find how many times "kill" was in the Quran but I did find that there are over 100 verses which call for Muslims to war with non-believers. Here's a link:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Can you provide any Bible verses in which Christ tells His followers to war with non-believers? How about any where He tells them to kill anyone who refuses to follow Him? Maybe just a few about where He tells them to torture people until they believe? You seem to know just where this violent streak in Christ is hidden so please show me.




mmoetc said:


> You've often talked of absolute war. Of fighting to win. Of making the lives of those conquered so uncomfortable that they fear rising up. How does this square with the prince of peace going quietly to the cross and accepting his fate. How is that a Christian value?


You know what Christ did when He faced something He considered a vile and evil act? He attacked people. Granted He didn't kill anyone but He used violence to put an end to evil. Plus near the end of His earthly life He told his followers they should arm themselves. You don't tell someone to arm themselves if you do not expect them to use those arms. You can also go back to the Old Testament, where we learn about God and His "views" and find out that He used violence to defeat evil. He used plagues, hail stones, snakes, fire and in one famous case a really big flood. And He also used war. In many cases total and absolute war. But even then He did not call for torture and mutilation and He gave the people doing the evil chances to stop before He acted. 

The difference is using violence to stop evil and using it to spread the Word. One is justified that other is not. Putting it in worldly terms if you are attacking a child I'd be justified in using violence to stop you. But if you say you don't like Mountain Dew I would not be justified in using violence to force you to like it and drink it. (Ok not a great analogy) 

A true Christian doesn't think he's better than God and therefore can force someone to be saved. A true Christian, as the old saying goes, lives and lets live. If you don't want to hear what he has to say about Christ and salvation that's your choice and that's fine. All we are told to do is tell you about it and then only if you want to hear.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> I did a quick google search and could not find how many times "kill" was in the Quran but I did find that there are over 100 verses which call for Muslims to war with non-believers. Here's a link:
> 
> http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
> .


 As admitted in your own heavily anti-Islam link, those passages are 'open to interpretation', and not surprisingly given ZERO context. Heck in most cases the entire verse isn't even shown, just the most violent part. The fact that some use thier 'holy book' to justifiy murder is not surprising, just be thankful the Christians don't follow the old Testament, (except when it suits them and their prejudices). Throw a country into chaos, put it under occupation, and I have no doubt some radicals would cling to the old testament in order to justify all sorts of violent deeds. You'd probably say they weren't 'true christians', and you'd be right.
There will always be good and bad people, no matter what god they claim to worship.


----------



## farmrbrown

And yet Jesus also said this, for those who think the OT does not apply, or that Jesus said not to follow it..
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17-20&version=ESV

Matthew 5:17-20English Standard Version (ESV)

Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 &#8220;Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.






It is only when you UNDERSTAND the Old Testament that you can rightly divide the Word.
Remember, Jesus had the Law at his disposal when they came to Him to stone the adulteress. He knew how, when and whom to apply it.
Yes, context is important.
John 8:7
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."


Let me put this clearly since confusion seems to reign about all of this.

Know the Commandments, keep the Commandments and teach the Commandments.
Let GOD handle the punishment, because WE are not worthy to to that to anyone.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wow, Watcher so well said!

Post #304-Post of the milleneum award.


----------



## Patchouli

watcher said:


> A swing and a miss there. See those are Israelites/Jews. Just as Christians don't have to skip the bacon or slit a bull's throat they also have different teachings on violence. I can only remember two places in the New Testament (which is where our "rules" come from) which even suggest violence is OK. One is where Christ drove the money lenders out of the Temple and the other is where He told His followers if they did not have a sword they should sell their cloak and buy one.
> 
> For a Christian the Old Testament is studied to try to lean God's heart, or how He "thinks" not to learn how we are to act. We are shown He treats those who reject Him harshly. We are shown the things He hates and the things He loves.
> 
> Now if you have something which shows that Christ tells He's followers to do violent acts then you'll have something. There are too many verses where He tells us just the opposite and where He showed us that as well. Remember what He did when Peter cut off a guy's ear trying to keep them from taking Christ? He rebuked Peter and healed the guy. Sounds like the type of guy who is going to suggest pouring boiling lead over someone's belly until they repent their sins and accept Him as their Savior doesn't it.


So you have more than one God there? Or your God got therapy and became a kinder gentler one? You can't just toss out 2/3s of yor Holy Book and say oh but those don't count. God was pretty harsh but Jesus is nice. Simple fact is your Christianity used those passages in the OT for the past 2000 years to wage war against non-believers, to defend their horrible behavior and to force people to convert. 

The Inquisition for example based their torture and killing on scripture including this from the NT: 



> John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.





> This was the popular OT one:
> Deut. 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
> 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
> 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
> 4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
> 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
> 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
> 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
> 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
> 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
> 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
> 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
> 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
> 13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
> 14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
> 15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
> 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
> 17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
> 18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God.


Keep in mind the countries that had Inquisitions were basically theocracies at that time. Christianity was the official religion and the Church ruled with an iron fist through the government. There is nothing in the NT that argues against a theocracy and the only description of how to run one was found in the OT.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Look, another Holy War!


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> As admitted in your own heavily anti-Islam link, those passages are 'open to interpretation', and not surprisingly given ZERO context. Heck in most cases the entire verse isn't even shown, just the most violent part. The fact that some use thier 'holy book' to justifiy murder is not surprising, just be thankful the Christians don't follow the old Testament, (except when it suits them and their prejudices). Throw a country into chaos, put it under occupation, and I have no doubt some radicals would cling to the old testament in order to justify all sorts of violent deeds. You'd probably say they weren't 'true christians', and you'd be right.
> There will always be good and bad people, no matter what god they claim to worship.


A true Christian an not following the teachings of the OT because we are followers of Christ's teachings. We are told that the old law was fulfilled with Him. We don't have to skip the catfish (no scales you know) and we don't have stone adulterers.

You keep bring up that Christians use the Bible to justify violence. Ok show me some of the verses you or they use to do so. Not verses which are specifically aimed at Israelites or part of the old Mosaic laws. Show me where Christ told His followers to use violence in the advancement of His kingdom. Give me even some verses which are "open to interpretation" about it.

I think I have asked you for this several times. The ONLY thing you have done is dug out some of God's "orders" to the Jews in the OT. You have posted nothing about Christ and His followers.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> And yet Jesus also said this, for those who think the OT does not apply, or that Jesus said not to follow it..
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:17-20&version=ESV
> 
> Matthew 5:17-20English Standard Version (ESV)
> 
> Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
> 17 âDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only when you UNDERSTAND the Old Testament that you can rightly divide the Word.
> Remember, Jesus had the Law at his disposal when they came to Him to stone the adulteress. He knew how, when and whom to apply it.
> Yes, context is important.
> John 8:7
> When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
> 
> 
> Let me put this clearly since confusion seems to reign about all of this.
> 
> Know the Commandments, keep the Commandments and teach the Commandments.
> Let GOD handle the punishment, because WE are not worthy to to that to anyone.


You have to remember a couple of things. First Christ said we have only two commandments to follow; Love God with all your heart and love others as you love yourself. And He told us we are go judge others based on their lives, i.e. you judge a tree by its fruit.

I someone claims to be a Christian and knowingly and repeatedly violates His teachings you can rightfully judge them to not be a Christian.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> So you have more than one God there? Or your God got therapy and became a kinder gentler one? You can't just toss out 2/3s of yor Holy Book and say oh but those don't count. God was pretty harsh but Jesus is nice. Simple fact is your Christianity used those passages in the OT for the past 2000 years to wage war against non-believers, to defend their horrible behavior and to force people to convert.
> 
> The Inquisition for example based their torture and killing on scripture including this from the NT:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind the countries that had Inquisitions were basically theocracies at that time. Christianity was the official religion and the Church ruled with an iron fist through the government. There is nothing in the NT that argues against a theocracy and the only description of how to run one was found in the OT.


Nope, as I've said many times, rightly dividing the Word is the key to understanding, Godly wisdom is needed and available to all who ask for it.
There aren't "two Gods", same one that always was.
Everything you quoted from scripture is the result of not following the commandments. Follow the commandments and nothing but good will follow you.
It's that simple.
Not easy, but simple.





watcher said:


> A true Christian an not following the teachings of the OT because we are followers of Christ's teachings. We are told that the old law was fulfilled with Him. We don't have to skip the catfish (no scales you know) and we don't have stone adulterers.
> 
> You keep bring up that Christians use the Bible to justify violence. Ok show me some of the verses you or they use to do so. Not verses which are specifically aimed at Israelites or part of the old Mosaic laws. Show me where Christ told His followers to use violence in the advancement of His kingdom. Give me even some verses which are "open to interpretation" about it.
> 
> I think I have asked you for this several times. The ONLY thing you have done is dug out some of God's "orders" to the Jews in the OT. You have posted nothing about Christ and His followers.





watcher said:


> You have to remember a couple of things. First Christ said we have only two commandments to follow; Love God with all your heart and love others as you love yourself. And He told us we are go judge others based on their lives, i.e. you judge a tree by its fruit.
> 
> I someone claims to be a Christian and knowingly and repeatedly violates His teachings you can rightfully judge them to not be a Christian.



Yes, follow the two Christ said and you automatically follow everything written - in the OT and the New.
The dietary laws are for your own good, ignore them if you wish, but Jesus followed them all.
He loved his Father and His fellow man, just that simple.




nchobbyfarm said:


> Look, another Holy War!



Not really, LOL.


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, as I've said many times, rightly dividing the Word is the key to understanding, Godly wisdom is needed and available to all who ask for it.
> There aren't "two Gods", same one that always was.
> Everything you quoted from scripture is the result of not following the commandments. Follow the commandments and nothing but good will follow you.
> It's that simple.
> Not easy, but simple.


So then we are agreed that your God is a jealous God and has throughout his time of speaking to his people commanded that they kill a whole lot of other people who either never believed in him, believed in him and fell away or just followed other gods and didn't care about him one way or another? That he sent his people to kill these people and their whole families down to the babies and sometimes even their livestock and take their homes and lands for their own. That he also had whole families including babies in his chosen group stoned to death because the great grandfather insulted him? 

Curiosity question for you: if a country does have a Christian majority and chooses to go the Theocracy route is that right or wrong according to the new rules?


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> You keep bring up that Christians use the Bible to justify violence. Ok show me some of the verses you or they use to do so. Not verses which are specifically aimed at Israelites or part of the old Mosaic laws. .


 I didn't claim anyone was using the words of Jesus to commit violence, only that misguided fundamentalists could take some of the more violent edicts at face value and use them to justify violence. The KKK, Army of God, the Ugandan LRA, the Irish IRA, abortion clinic bombers, all these people found a way to distort the Bible and use it to violently further their agendas. So the fact that some Islamic idiots do the same thing with their book doesn't surprise me at all. 
Luckily the vast, vast majority of the worlds Muslims DON'T actively practice or support 'jihad' and terrorism against the unbelievers', no matter what some anti-Islam site tells you.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> So then we are agreed that your God is a jealous God and has throughout his time of speaking to his people commanded that they kill a whole lot of other people who either never believed in him, believed in him and fell away or just followed other gods and didn't care about him one way or another? That he sent his people to kill these people and their whole families down to the babies and sometimes even their livestock and take their homes and lands for their own. That he also had whole families including babies in his chosen group stoned to death because the great grandfather insulted him?
> 
> Curiosity question for you: if a country does have a Christian majority and chooses to go the Theocracy route is that right or wrong according to the new rules?



To your last question, I don't know. I doubt that will be a possibility in this Age. I AM looking forward to the next one though.

I response to the preceding comment, I offer only this......

Isaiah 40:13-14New International Version (NIV)

13 Who can fathom the Spirit[a] of the Lord,
or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
or showed him the path of understanding?


----------



## mmoetc

For those who converted or died at the point of the sword it made little difference if a "true" Christian held the sword or not. The results were the same. For those who saw their temples destroyed and their religous artifacts sent to be melted and remade into crosses it didn't matter if God directed it or it was falsely done in the name of God. The results were the same. Whether the couple of hundred of years of bloodshed to sort out the reformation was really biblically justified really mattered little to those who fought and died. The results were the same whether you now consider them righteous or misguided. To those dying today in the Middle East is it really important if the killing is done by Islam or falsely in the name of Islam? The results are the same.

2000 years after it's founding even the good Christians here can't seem to agree on what Christianity is. How are we non believers supposed to figure it out?


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> To your last question, I don't know. I doubt that will be a possibility in this Age. I AM looking forward to the next one though.
> 
> I response to the preceding comment, I offer only this......
> 
> Isaiah 40:13-14New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 13 Who can fathom the Spirit[a] of the Lord,
> or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
> 14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
> and who taught him the right way?
> Who was it that taught him knowledge,
> or showed him the path of understanding?


I would respond with this: 


> Deut. 6:13 It is the Lord your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. 14 You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around youâ 15 for the Lord your God in your midst is a jealous Godâlest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.


There have been plenty of theocracies in the last 2,000 years. Read some European history and see how that turned out. Lots of Christians killing Christians for not having the correct theology. Lots of Christians killing people of every other faith too.


----------



## mmoetc

Patchouli said:


> I would respond with this:
> 
> 
> There have been plenty of theocracies in the last 2,000 years. Read some European history and see how that turned out. Lots of Christians killing Christians for not having the correct theology. Lots of Christians killing people of every other faith too.


Now Patchouli, we all know they weren't really Christians. But what did it really matter. The killing happened anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown

Both previous posts are true.
Both have in common the thing God warned about in Samuel I, an earthly king.
The only theocracy I look forward to is the one, true King.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel 8


Israel Asks for a King
8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel&#8217;s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, &#8220;You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead* us, such as all the other nations have.&#8221;

6 But when they said, &#8220;Give us a king to lead us,&#8221; this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: &#8220;Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.&#8221;

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, &#8220;This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.&#8221;

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. &#8220;No!&#8221; they said. &#8220;We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.&#8221;

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, &#8220;Listen to them and give them a king.&#8221;

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, &#8220;Everyone go back to your own town.&#8221;*


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Both previous posts are true.
> Both have in common the thing God warned about in Samuel I, an earthly king.
> The only theocracy I look forward to is the one, true King.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel 8
> 
> 
> Israel Asks for a King
> 8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israelâs leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
> 
> 4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, âYou are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead* us, such as all the other nations have.â
> 
> 6 But when they said, âGive us a king to lead us,â this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: âListen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.â
> 
> 10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, âThis is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.â
> 
> 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. âNo!â they said. âWe want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.â
> 
> 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, âListen to them and give them a king.â
> 
> Then Samuel said to the Israelites, âEveryone go back to your own town.â*


*

But isn't Samuel part of the Old Testament and only for Israelites? Isn't that the part of the bible Christians aren't supposed to pay attention to, until they do because it justifies their belief?*


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> So then we are agreed that your God is a jealous God and has throughout his time of speaking to his people commanded that they kill a whole lot of other people who either never believed in him, believed in him and fell away or just followed other gods and didn't care about him one way or another? That he sent his people to kill these people and their whole families down to the babies and sometimes even their livestock and take their homes and lands for their own. That he also had whole families including babies in his chosen group stoned to death because the great grandfather insulted him?
> 
> Curiosity question for you: if a country does have a Christian majority and chooses to go the Theocracy route is that right or wrong according to the new rules?


Holy Carp, girlfriend, didn't you just read the explanations??


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Holy Carp, girlfriend, didn't you just read the explanations??


But which explanation speaks for true Christians? The one that tells us the Old Testament was just for the Israelites or the one that tells us, at least parts, apply today? The one that tells us about the loving god or the jealous god. The one that tells us Christ was a man of peace or that tells us he told his followers to arm themselves. The one that says there are only two rules or the one that speaks of the Ten Commandments. You'll have to be more specific.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dlmcafee said:


> From above
> 
> " One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, *though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida.*"
> 
> Did you not argue the majority approved the tactics?


The argument is that MOST muslims agree w/sharia law. Most who were polled about France & other attacks said the violence was awful but mostly justified.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> It was cleared up that day, and the facts remain the same. The TSA didn't 'hire terrorists', they failed to vet people working for airlines and airports. Read much tricky??
> 
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/08/tsa-hired-73-from-terror-watchlist0.html


TSA&#8217;s multi-layered process to vet aviation workers for potential links to terrorism was generally effective. In addition to initially vetting every application for new credentials, TSA recurrently vetted aviation workers with access to secured areas of commercial airports every time the Consolidated Terrorist Watchlist was updated. However, our testing showed that TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes because TSA is not authorized to receive all terrorism-related information under current interagency watchlisting policy.

TSA had less effective controls in place for ensuring that aviation workers 1) had not committed crimes that would disqualify them from having unescorted access to secure airports areas, and 2) had lawful status and were authorized to work in the United States. In general, TSA relied on airport operators to perform criminal history and work authorization checks, but had limited oversight over these commercial entities. Thus, TSA lacked assurance that it properly vetted all credential applicants.

Further, thousands of records used for vetting workers contained potentially incomplete or inaccurate data, such as an initial for a first name and missing Social Security numbers. TSA did not have appropriate edit checks in place to reject such records from vetting. Without complete and accurate information, TSA risks credentialing and providing unescorted access to secure airport areas for workers with potential to harm the nation&#8217;s air transportation system.

&#8220;Generally effective&#8221; indeed.

TSA took a beating in the public eye last week, with even mainstream media picking up an IG report explaining how auditors from the Department of Homeland Security were able to sneak weapons and bomb materials past TSA screeners 95 percent of the time.

I believe your earlier comment was something about not caring who sold coffee...I'd be more concerned about their access to SECURED AREAS.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> I believe your earlier comment was something about not caring who sold coffee...I'd be more concerned about their access to SECURED AREAS.


 I think its a good idea to have airport workers background checked, however that was not the point of my comments. The fact still remains TSA was not 'hiring terrorists' as some would have us believe.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> The argument is that MOST muslims agree w/sharia law. .


 So what? You're not a Muslim. Do most Jews 'agree' with Rabbinical Law? Would it surprise you if they did?

You put a lot of stock in these 'polls', so heres something you apparently missed...



> Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims.


 Kind of like I have been saying over and over. Looks like you can hold off on ordering that burkha. The great Muslim hordes aren't going to haul you off to sharia court for not wearing it.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/


----------



## painterswife

greg273 said:


> So what? You're not a Muslim. Do most Jews 'agree' with Rabbinical Law? Would it surprise you if they did?
> 
> You put a lot of stock in these 'polls', so heres something you apparently missed...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like I have been saying over and over. Looks like you can hold off on ordering that burkha. The great Muslims hordes aren't going to haul you off to sharia court for not wearing it.


Not to mention that those polls are not in the US.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> So you have more than one God there? Or your God got therapy and became a kinder gentler one? You can't just toss out 2/3s of yor Holy Book and say oh but those don't count. God was pretty harsh but Jesus is nice. Simple fact is your Christianity used those passages in the OT for the past 2000 years to wage war against non-believers, to defend their horrible behavior and to force people to convert.


Not quite God is three in one but that's not what's happening here. God foretold of His plan to send someone to fulfill the law. Remember where Christ first started preaching and to whom? It was in the Temples and to the Jews. He went to them first because He was the promise that was told was coming. But they rejected Him, somewhat based on the fact He was opening the door for everyone not just their little group. 

Oh, and if you think God has gone soft you better read the entire NT. The last book will show you just how soft God has gotten on those who spit in His face.

But we are not tossing out anything. Everything Christ taught in the NT is based on the OT. If you read it you will find that in the OT God set up animal sacrifices yet He also says that He doesn't want or need the blood of bulls He wants you heart. That is just what Christ taught. Again as I have pointed out we are not under the law. We don't have to skip the bacon for breakfast. We don't have to not work from sundown to sundown on the Sabbath. We don't have to kill a bull someone we don't have to stone it and its owner to death. 

A Christian reads the OT to learn about God's heart. Time and time again He shows He is actually loving but just. He tells people the rules and gives them many chances to correct their ways. But in the end you pay for the choices you make. Read Jeremiah. 




Patchouli said:


> The Inquisition for example based their torture and killing on scripture including this from the NT:


If you go back a little, 1st verse, you will notice just who is going to do the pruning and burning. It says my Father (God) is the gardener He is the one who will do the pruning and burning. If you read farther down you will find "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." 

When people take verses like that and try to say they should be taken literally I ask them if they think Christ is a wood door or a metal one because after all He specifically said I am the door.

There's one example which is easily shown to be false. Got more?




Patchouli said:


> Keep in mind the countries that had Inquisitions were basically theocracies at that time. Christianity was the official religion and the Church ruled with an iron fist through the government. There is nothing in the NT that argues against a theocracy and the only description of how to run one was found in the OT.


Yep and that was the problem. It was being ran by men based on their desires. The OT is full of examples of this and in the NT Christ pointed it out. Remember what He called the leaders of the "church" of the day? And if you read you will discover He tells us to judge people by their actions.

And a theocracy ran under Christian rules would work OK. Laws would be set up to follow the rules of do unto others, love your neighbor and if you don't want to be a Christian that's your free choice.


----------



## watcher

Patchouli said:


> Curiosity question for you: if a country does have a Christian majority and chooses to go the Theocracy route is that right or wrong according to the new rules?


Its perfectly ok as long as they follow the teachings of Christ in their governing. For example it'd be ok to say that schools would teach the Bible and Christianity but it would be wrong for them to say to go to school everyone had to be a Christian. 

If you read the teachings of Christ one thing stands out, He came to show the way not to force people down it. Using any kind of force to "make" people come to Christ is clearly against His teachings and is IMO blasphemy. You are putting yourself above God. God gives everyone the 'right' to choose Him or not. Do you really think a God who can make an universe and made man couldn't make them in such a way they all would choose to follow Him?


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> I didn't claim anyone was using the words of Jesus to commit violence, only that misguided fundamentalists could take some of the more violent edicts at face value and use them to justify violence. The KKK, Army of God, the Ugandan LRA, the Irish IRA, abortion clinic bombers, all these people found a way to distort the Bible and use it to violently further their agendas. So the fact that some Islamic idiots do the same thing with their book doesn't surprise me at all.
> Luckily the vast, vast majority of the worlds Muslims DON'T actively practice or support 'jihad' and terrorism against the unbelievers', no matter what some anti-Islam site tells you.


I love talking to members of groups like that. Especially the antisemitic ones who claim to be Christians. I love to ask them if they would allow a Jew to walk into their house. When they give an emphatic no I tell them they would have to refuse Christ as well because He was a Jew. That usually turns them into Ralph Kramden as they stand there sputtering "hymmna, hymmna, hymmna. . ."

But the fact still stands there are many many places in the teachings that the followers of Islam are to follow written by the hand of their one and only prophet which call for violence against those who do not follow the God of Abraham. There is nothing in the teachings that the followers of Christ are to follow that does anything near the same. About the most violent thing you can find is being told to cut off YOUR OWN hand if it offends you (and that's clearly like Christ claiming to be a door) and even that doesn't even tell you to cut off your neighbor's hand.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> For those who converted or died at the point of the sword it made little difference if a "true" Christian held the sword or not. The results were the same. For those who saw their temples destroyed and their religous artifacts sent to be melted and remade into crosses it didn't matter if God directed it or it was falsely done in the name of God. The results were the same. Whether the couple of hundred of years of bloodshed to sort out the reformation was really biblically justified really mattered little to those who fought and died. The results were the same whether you now consider them righteous or misguided. To those dying today in the Middle East is it really important if the killing is done by Islam or falsely in the name of Islam? The results are the same.


True but if you look at all three religions you will find that they all have one thing in common. They all believe that what ever happens it is controlled by God. 




mmoetc said:


> 2000 years after it's founding even the good Christians here can't seem to agree on what Christianity is. How are we non believers supposed to figure it out?


Actually they all agree on what it is the majority of them just don't want to follow it. We are told that narrow is the way, few are chosen and in the end many will hear Him say go away I never knew you. We are warned about wolves in sheep skins and that there will be many false teachers and we are to judge what any man says against the Word of God.

Christianity is a very easy religions to follow for those who are truly seeking God. I can pretty much wrap it up in one run on sentence. Accept Christ as your Savior, that He died for your sins, confess and repent your sins, love God with all your heart, love others as you love yourself and when (not if because you are not perfect) confess and repent. If you do that all the rest of the stuff in the Bible will fall into place.


----------



## watcher

farmrbrown said:


> Both previous posts are true.
> Both have in common the thing God warned about in Samuel I, an earthly king.
> The only theocracy I look forward to is the one, true King.
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Samuel 8
> 
> 
> Israel Asks for a King
> 8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israelâs leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
> 
> 4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, âYou are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead* us, such as all the other nations have.â
> 
> 6 But when they said, âGive us a king to lead us,â this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: âListen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.â
> 
> 10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, âThis is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.â
> 
> 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. âNo!â they said. âWe want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.â
> 
> 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, âListen to them and give them a king.â
> 
> Then Samuel said to the Israelites, âEveryone go back to your own town.â*


*

That's true but they were already living under a theocracy lead by the priest and judges, as God set up. The problem was they didn't want to live as God set up they wanted to live worldly. Other worldly nations had earthly Kings the people could worship and they wanted that.*


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But isn't Samuel part of the Old Testament and only for Israelites? Isn't that the part of the bible Christians aren't supposed to pay attention to, until they do because it justifies their belief?


Here's a good example of how you are wrong. Its very important for Christians to pay attention to this. What Christians learn from the story isn't that we shouldn't have a king over us. What we should learn is when we put our plan in place of God's and fail to follow God's plan bad things happen.

A much better known story with the same teaching is the story of Jonah.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> But which explanation speaks for true Christians? The one that tells us the Old Testament was just for the Israelites or the one that tells us, at least parts, apply today? The one that tells us about the loving god or the jealous god. The one that tells us Christ was a man of peace or that tells us he told his followers to arm themselves. The one that says there are only two rules or the one that speaks of the Ten Commandments. You'll have to be more specific.


You are reading but clearly not comprehending. 

As pointed out the rules set down in the OT do not apply to Christians. But the reason those rules were set down is important and Christians need to know that. 

If you look at the 10 Commandments you will discover they all are covered in the two Christ gave us. The first four are covered by love God with all your heart and the last six are covered by love your neighbor as you love yourself.

The fact that God is jealous is shown in the first as well He expects no less then all of your love, not just part of it.

The fact that He's just and deals harshly with those who spit in His face is shown even in the NT. As pointed out check out the last book and see how nicely He treats those people.


----------



## Guest

It appears we are not fighting any of the philosophies mentioned in the poll as much as we are fighting one another on this thread. But it is fun reading how every one has their staunch opinions on the readings of and the following of their faith. I must say even in the oldest tradition of Torah/old testament, to the present it is common and accepted to have loud heated debates over the minutiae of meanings. If only all could fight with words and ideas without resorting to bombs and genocide.


----------



## watcher

greg273 said:


> So what? You're not a Muslim. Do most Jews 'agree' with Rabbinical Law? Would it surprise you if they did?


It would me. I know very few people who claim to be Jews who follow The Law. Most of them are like most people I know who claim to be Catholic. They know the rules but seem to think they do not apply to specifically to themselves.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> It would me. I know very few people who claim to be Jews who follow The Law. Most of them are like most people I know who claim to be Catholic. They know the rules but seem to think they do not apply to specifically to themselves.


I would bet they know the laws apply to them but I would venture to guess more precisely they do not care or the laws broken are of a minor nature and absolve themself in the passing of the eve.


----------



## watcher

dlmcafee said:


> I would bet they know the laws apply to them but I would venture to guess more precisely they do not care or the laws broken are of a minor nature and absolve themself in the passing of the eve.


Both of which show they don't really care about the law. Its like speeding, very few would be willing to say they don't think there should be laws against speeding but most people ignore those laws unless there's a cop around.

The thing about religious laws in most religions the "cop" is supposed to always be around.


----------



## Guest

watcher said:


> Both of which show they don't really care about the law. Its like speeding, very few would be willing to say they don't think there should be laws against speeding but most people ignore those laws unless there's a cop around.
> 
> The thing about religious laws in most religions the "cop" is supposed to always be around.


Yes and imagine most Christian believe Christian standards should be law as Jew and Muslim believe theirs should be also. That WAS the great thing about the original Constitution as defined by its founderers, protection against that very thing.

The COP is always around and your dealings and belief in his authority is solely a personal one.


----------



## Patchouli

mmoetc said:


> Now Patchouli, we all know they weren't really Christians. But what did it really matter. The killing happened anyway.


Well they were pretty convinced they were Christians and they were getting a free ticket to Heaven and all their sins wiped clean for killing people. Wouldn't you hate to be Peter at the pearly gates having to sort out all the disappointed and confused?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> But which explanation speaks for true Christians? The one that tells us the Old Testament was just for the Israelites or the one that tells us, at least parts, apply today? The one that tells us about the loving god or the jealous god. The one that tells us Christ was a man of peace or that tells us he told his followers to arm themselves. The one that says there are only two rules or the one that speaks of the Ten Commandments. You'll have to be more specific.


Maybe you don't read all the posts. Maybe thats why it all seems like a broken record.

There were no Christians in the old testament. So no Christains followed that nor do they now. If any of you who are quoting old testament verses would just stop a minute & think: Who was God talking to? It was certainly NOT followers of Christ. Christ came to this earth and fufilled the old testament. Christ gave us His way to follow. 

Is there anything non-specific here? Anything you don't understand? I cannot speak about the bible as eloquently as Farmerbrown, who's much more the scholar than I am. But even I can understand that there were NO CHRISTIANS until AFTER CHRIST.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> I think its a good idea to have airport workers background checked, however that was not the point of my comments. The fact still remains TSA was not 'hiring terrorists' as some would have us believe.


Maybe we shoulda just said 'vetting them to be hired'...like that makes it all better.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> So what? You're not a Muslim. Do most Jews 'agree' with Rabbinical Law? Would it surprise you if they did?
> 
> You put a lot of stock in these 'polls', so heres something you apparently missed...
> 
> Kind of like I have been saying over and over. Looks like you can hold off on ordering that burkha. The great Muslim hordes aren't going to haul you off to sharia court for not wearing it.
> 
> http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/


We are a nation founded on Judeo Christian principles so of course many Jews follow Rabbinical law. Are they fostering terrorism? Or do they believe if you dis God you should be severely punished, even death? Do they believe in free speech? Sharia Law? Why did you even bring the Jewish community into this?


----------



## Tricky Grama

While some Muslim Americans are joining the ranks to fight for the Islamic State, a newly discovered 2012 poll found that the majority of U.S. Muslims have a fundamental problem with the freedom of speech.

The data, collected in October 2012 and analyzed by the public-opinion research firm of Wenzel Strategies, found that 58 percent of Muslims believe criticism of Islam or the prophet Muhammad should be punished as a crime, even under the death penalty, the conservative website WND reported.

It appears these faithful have a strict interpretation of the Quran, which states:

&#8220;The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement&#8221; &#8211;Quran 5:33



Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09...-free-speech-shariah-law-144496#ixzz3dB6Gx5yh


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe we shoulda just said 'vetting them to be hired'..


 Yes, because that actually would have been a true statement.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> While some Muslim Americans are joining the ranks to fight for the Islamic State, a newly discovered 2012 poll found that the majority of U.S. Muslims have a fundamental problem with the freedom of speech.


 Oh you're sure putting a lot of stock in that World Nut Daily poll... pretty sure I read it was '600' people they interviewed? What a joke! 
Look, we get it, you don't like Muslims. Too bad, they have as much right to be in this country as you do. I agree we should watch out for jihadis, but demonizing all Muslims isn't going to help you or anyone else, in fact its going to make things WORSE.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The data, collected in October 2012 and analyzed by the public-opinion research firm of Wenzel Strategies, found that 58 percent of Muslims believe criticism of Islam or the prophet Muhammad should be punished as a crime, even under the death penalty, the conservative website *WND *reported.


WND has the same credibility as INFOWARS, which is to say none at all

Polls in general are meaningless without thousands of participants


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe you don't read all the posts. Maybe thats why it all seems like a broken record.
> 
> There were no Christians in the old testament. So no Christains followed that nor do they now. If any of you who are quoting old testament verses would just stop a minute & think: Who was God talking to? It was certainly NOT followers of Christ. Christ came to this earth and fufilled the old testament. Christ gave us His way to follow.
> 
> Is there anything non-specific here? Anything you don't understand? I cannot speak about the bible as eloquently as Farmerbrown, who's much more the scholar than I am. But even I can understand that there were NO CHRISTIANS until AFTER CHRIST.


I did read all the rebuttals. Many seemed to conflict with each other and some with themselves. Your religion uses the Old Testament as a founding document. Yet we're told, by some, that the rules in that document were for that time and at some point were changed and no longer applied. Well, at least some of the rules. It would seem to an outsider that which rules and who they apply to is still in a bit of flux. We're told that the rules that do apply are only relevant for believers yet much time and effort gets spent offering justification why those biblical rules should be the basis of laws that apply equally to non- believers. I'm just glad that Old Testament verses will no longer be used to further those arguements. Until they are.


----------



## Patchouli

mmoetc said:


> I did read all the rebuttals. Many seemed to conflict with each other and some with themselves. Your religion uses the Old Testament as a founding document. Yet we're told, by some, that the rules in that document were for that time and at some point were changed and no longer applied. Well, at least some of the rules. It would seem to an outsider that which rules and who they apply to is still in a bit of flux. We're told that the rules that do apply are only relevant for believers yet much time and effort gets spent offering justification why those biblical rules should be the basis of laws that apply equally to non- believers. I'm just glad that Old Testament verses will no longer be used to further those arguements. Until they are.


Exactly! I considered going through the responses and picking out the opposing points from the Christians but just didn't have the energy.

If Christians can't agree on what applies in their Holy book and what doesn't then how is an outsider supposed to figure it out? And if that is true of Christians and the Bible how much more so someone trying to read the Qur'an and decipher what applies and what doesn't in Islam? 

Here's the crux of it: if it makes your head spin as a Christian to see us cut up your Bible and post bits to prove our points that you feel we don't understand or are taking out of context then how do you think Muslims feel when you do the exact same thing to their book and their religion? Maybe the same thing as you? Those people don't know what they are talking about and I find this highly offensive.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> But isn't Samuel part of the Old Testament and only for Israelites? Isn't that the part of the bible Christians aren't supposed to pay attention to, until they do because it justifies their belief?



LOL.
No, but I DO understand the confusion.
I would bet that most churches today reinforce that contention in their congregations.
It's a shame, but one day, all will be made crystal clear.:rock:





watcher said:


> That's true but they were already living under a theocracy lead by the priest and judges, as God set up. The problem was they didn't want to live as God set up they wanted to live worldly. Other worldly nations had earthly Kings the people could worship and they wanted that.


Well, except for the very first part of that passage.
Therein lies the whole problem. Men know what they are *supposed* to do, but they always seem to get around to doing everything else first.:gaptooth:




Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe you don't read all the posts. Maybe thats why it all seems like a broken record.
> 
> There were no Christians in the old testament. So no Christains followed that nor do they now. If any of you who are quoting old testament verses would just stop a minute & think: Who was God talking to? It was certainly NOT followers of Christ. Christ came to this earth and fufilled the old testament. Christ gave us His way to follow.
> 
> Is there anything non-specific here? Anything you don't understand? I cannot speak about the bible as eloquently as Farmerbrown, who's much more the scholar than I am. But even I can understand that there were NO CHRISTIANS until AFTER CHRIST.


Thank you TG, but I am way below a scholar. I'm still working on getting passing grades so I don't keep getting held back and repeating life's mistakes.
LOL.

Once again, we can thank the religious rulers we put in place to mess up what God intended.
This schism can be traced to the Council of Nicene in 335 A.D., I believe.
It's also the one that provides Christians a huge stumbling block today as they try to answer the pointed questions of nonbelievers.

I don't want to directly contradict what you said, because _technically_, before Christ, there really weren't anyone called Christian or followers of that faith.

I could probably be labeled as a Messianic Jew (twice removed?, twice reformed? LOL) but I often just say I'm a child of God, and let the market managers on Madison Ave. do the chore of "labeling".


God and His Son never intended for there to be any separation after the cross, just the opposite. But meddling man has way of screwing up the best of plans, doncha know.
That's our fault, not His.
Pettiness, Jealousy, Pride, etc all contribute to dividing the Church and weakening it.

Just imagine Jesus, Peter and rest of the disciples being ushered into a Sunday service (not Saturday) and being served a big ham dinner afterwards on Easter.
LOL
It's a humorous scene to me, but I'm sure they'd handle it with all the grace and love they could bring to an awkward situation.
When your children make a mess of things when they are trying to please you and have good intentions, a good parent lovingly corrects them as he gives them a hug.:kiss:

Here's an interesting side study to try when you have time.
Look up every instance in the Bible where it says, "The angel of the Lord........"

It starts in Genesis and appears many times throughout the OT.
Some angels aren't named, some like Gabriel and Michael are, but that particular reference happens over and over and when you read each event, see if you can figure out exactly who "the angel of the Lord" is.......

He was there from the beginning and always with us, with ALL of God's children.
Even before he came in a human body 2,000 years ago.
So there have always been believers, even if they didn't know it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I did read all the rebuttals. Many seemed to conflict with each other and some with themselves. Your religion uses the Old Testament as a founding document. Yet we're told, by some, that the rules in that document were for that time and at some point were changed and no longer applied. Well, at least some of the rules. It would seem to an outsider that which rules and who they apply to is still in a bit of flux. We're told that the rules that do apply are only relevant for believers yet much time and effort gets spent offering justification why those biblical rules should be the basis of laws that apply equally to non- believers. I'm just glad that Old Testament verses will no longer be used to further those arguements. Until they are.


Well, just think about it, Christians follow Christ. Christ did not live b/4 A.D. If you or anyone wants to toss verses out to diminish, to poopoo Christians, know that if the verses come from the Old Testament your chances of getting to us are slim to none.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Thank you so much Farmerbrown. I'll get into that over the wkend. 
When my kids were in public school, they went to CCD classed, Catholic 'Sunday school', sorta. I had to help w/homework & when they were on the Old Testament, help them study it. I finally called the teacher, told her I couldnot do this, they weren't going to hear the atrocities when I was unable to explain a loving God at the same time...

My DD is in a bible study class now...they're in those parts of the bible & she is shocked. I told her to just blame it on me, I never helped her in that area...


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, just think about it, Christians follow Christ. Christ did not live b/4 A.D. If you or anyone wants to toss verses out to diminish, to poopoo Christians, know that if the verses come from the Old Testament your chances of getting to us are slim to none.


I've already pointed out one such verse used in this thread. A verse used by a Christian to bolster his point. A verse another Christian admits is being taught in Christian churches but who says is being wrongly applied. Which Christian(s) do I believe? 

My answer is I believe all of them. They're free to believe and live by whatever they wish. They aren't free to impose those beliefs on me or insist I live by those beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc

I'd like to take a moment to thank farmrbrown for his posts. You, and some others, are obviously devout in your faith and have spent much time, effort and thought to get where you're at. That some of you have come to different places isn't surprising. I'm not arguing against your faith, your beliefs or even your wish to spread them to others. I will continue to argue against those who seem to feel that those of us who don't believe the same(whatever that is) are somehow lesser beings and should be subjected to living by their beliefs. Thanks, farmrbrown, for making me think.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I'd like to take a moment to thank farmrbrown for his posts. You, and some others, are obviously devout in your faith and have spent much time, effort and thought to get where you're at. That some of you have come to different places isn't surprising. I'm not arguing against your faith, your beliefs or even your wish to spread them to others. I will continue to argue against those who seem to feel that those of us who don't believe the same(whatever that is) are somehow lesser beings and should be subjected to living by their beliefs. Thanks, farmrbrown, for making me think.


Sorry, but don't know where you get that anyone thinks you are lesser beings. NO Christian should think that of anyone else. 

To counter SOME overzealous non-conserves who put us down in most post/threads, we've shown that WE are not lesser beings as those non-conserves constantly tell us we are. We DO give more, over all, than do non-conserves. 

And I believe we've even said we don't think it applies to most on HT, generally speaking most HT'ers are generous, imho.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry, but don't know where you get that anyone thinks you are lesser beings. NO Christian should think that of anyone else.
> 
> To counter SOME overzealous non-conserves who put us down in most post/threads, we've shown that WE are not lesser beings as those non-conserves constantly tell us we are. We DO give more, over all, than do non-conserves.
> 
> And I believe we've even said we don't think it applies to most on HT, generally speaking most HT'ers are generous, imho.


On these pages I've seen those that haven't followed some religous orthodoxy referred to as deviants, perverts and suffering from mental illness. If that doesn't indicate lesser being status you'll have to offer your own definition.

I don't think I've ever measured a person's worth by how much money they gave to any charity. I'm guessing your god hasn't either.


----------



## watcher

mmoetc said:


> I'd like to take a moment to thank farmrbrown for his posts. You, and some others, are obviously devout in your faith and have spent much time, effort and thought to get where you're at. That some of you have come to different places isn't surprising. I'm not arguing against your faith, your beliefs or even your wish to spread them to others. I will continue to argue against those who seem to feel that those of us who don't believe the same(whatever that is) are somehow lesser beings and should be subjected to living by their beliefs. Thanks, farmrbrown, for making me think.


I have posted several times that anyone who is trying to subject you to living a "Christian life" is not following the teachings of Christ. He tells us if someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say we are to just leave them alone.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I have posted several times that anyone who is trying to subject you to living a "Christian life" is not following the teachings of Christ. He tells us if someone doesn't want to hear what we have to say we are to just leave them alone.


You need to tell a whole bunch of Christians that then because they sure want to make laws that make others follow what they believe to be Christian tenets.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

farmrbrown said:


> This schism can be traced to the Council of Nicene in 335 A.D., I believe.


Farmerbrown, probably you refer to the Council of Nicaea, which according to internet sources was in A.D. 325.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> You need to tell a whole bunch of Christians that then because they sure want to make laws that make others follow what they believe to be Christian tenets.


Not only do I tell them that I tell non-believers to tell them that as well. Just ask them if they know what Matthew 10:14 or tell that they should do what Christ tells them in Matthew 10:14.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> You need to tell a whole bunch of Christians that then because they sure want to make laws that make others follow what they believe to be Christian tenets.


Now what group doesn't attempt to form their surroundings to fit their beliefs. Trying to avoid that conundrum was attempted by signing of that dreaded document on December 15, 1791. The down fall comes when human nature enters and ones own beliefs twist and turn meaning to benefit themselves. I will assume that none of the 10 commandments which form a great deal of the baseline for which socially accepted criminal law is formed, you also object to.

Tenent is principal or belief, not a word solely restricted to religion.


----------



## puddlejumper007

if obama gets his way, we will be fighting amongst our selves


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Now what group doesn't attempt to form their surroundings to fit their beliefs. Trying to avoid that conundrum was attempted by signing of that dreaded document on December 15, 1791. The down fall comes when human nature enters and ones own beliefs twist and turn meaning to benefit themselves. I will assume that none of the 10 commandments which form a great deal of the baseline for which socially accepted criminal law is formed, you also object to.
> 
> Tenent is principal or belief, not a word solely restricted to religion.


So there should be no problem if I work at educating the children to be atheists.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> So there should be no problem if I work at educating the children to be atheists.


Why should it, they are (or their parents are) i would suppose consenting in your attempt to instill your *beliefs*, and in turn I should be afforded the same in my beliefs. 

All or none. 

Which by the way your response pertained to nothing I typed. At least I attempted to respond within the boundaries of your statement.


----------



## arabian knight

I sure like this pledge from Mike Huckabee

*I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the Constitution, and the citizens of the United States:
I will adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.
I will advocate for a complete overhaul of our tax system. This means passing the FairTax and abolishing the IRS.
I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
I will now, and will for the duration of my presidency, promote and sign all measures leading to Obamacare&#8217;s defunding, deauthorization, and repeal.
I will oppose amnesty and government benefits for illegal immigrants who violated our laws, repeal President Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, and secure our borders.
I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception until the grave. Taking this unequivocal stand includes fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.
I will stand for the Institution of Marriage and vigorously oppose any redefinition.
I will defend our 2nd Amendment rights and oppose gun control legislation.
I will fight for the United States military to be the most feared, respected, and capable fighting force the world has ever known. I will restore our military infrastructure after years of abuse and neglect.
I will stand with our friend and ally Israel in our shared fight against Radical Islam.
I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability.
I will end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans.
I will protect Social Security and Medicare and never rob seniors of the benefits they were promised and forced to pay for.
I will fight to kill Common Core and restore common sense. Education is a family function - not a federal function.
I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices. They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.
I will fight for term limits for members of Congress and judges.*


----------



## HDRider

MH has no chance.


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> I sure like this pledge from Mike Huckabee
> *
> I will stand with our friend and ally Israel in our shared fight against Radical Islam.*


 See, even the Huck knows we're fighting against RADICAL Islamic jihadists, NOT Islam itself.


----------



## arabian knight

HDRider said:


> MH has no chance.


Ya I know but still the pledge is neat.


----------



## gapeach

I think what Mike Huckabee said about Israel and radical Islam is right.

Radical Islam will not prevail against Israel -...
http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Israel-Uncensored/Radical-Islam-will-not-prevail-against-Israel-363673

*This incident exposes the true face of the terrorism that we are fighting ... Israel as she does ... of radical Islam will not prevail against Israel. *


----------



## greg273

Heres some good news from Iraq...a situation of Muslims killing jihadis... its just one small incident among many ISIS killed over the past 2 days, but I do believe this incident carries a lot of weight...




> On June 16, Iraqi Air Force (IAF) airstrike reportedly killed 23 ISIS &#8220;suicide bombers&#8221; in
> al-Mohammadi area, north of Hit district.* Separately, an Anbar Council of Representative(CoR) member stated that tribal fighters killed the ISIS leader of Hit district using silenced weapons in the first reported instance of its kind*. On June 17, an Iraqi airstrike
> targeted an ISIS camp in Zawiya area of Hit, killing 34 ISIS members.


 The Sunnis assasinated one of the ISIS would-be overlords. With a silencer. Thats gotta put some fear into the rest of the ISIS scumbags. Hopefully this starts a trend. 

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/iraq%20SITREP%202015-6-17.pdf


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> On these pages I've seen those that haven't followed some religous orthodoxy referred to as deviants, perverts and suffering from mental illness. If that doesn't indicate lesser being status you'll have to offer your own definition.
> 
> I don't think I've ever measured a person's worth by how much money they gave to any charity. I'm guessing your god hasn't either.


Well, I think a child molester is a pervert-beyond deviant. But NOT a lesser being. Deviant DOES sound like a notsogood label but you'd have to ask the poster what was meant by that, deviating from the norm? Deviating from the pathway? Deviating from the task at hand? But certainly not a lesser being.

I'm sure I'm not quoting verbatim but: "...it would be better for one who harms a child to be cast into the sea w/millstone around his neck...". 
Still, not a lesser being.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wow, 58 of ISIS down, 30K to go.
Except we don't know who the 1st 23 were, coulda been kids they turned into ISIS against their will...

Now the Kurds are making some headway. Too bad we dont REALLY help them Too bad we're flying over doing nada.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, I think a child molester is a pervert-beyond deviant. But NOT a lesser being. Deviant DOES sound like a notsogood label but you'd have to ask the poster what was meant by that, deviating from the norm? Deviating from the pathway? Deviating from the task at hand? But certainly not a lesser being.
> 
> I'm sure I'm not quoting verbatim but: "...it would be better for one who harms a child to be cast into the sea w/millstone around his neck...".
> Still, not a lesser being.


Nice try, but they weren't speaking of child molesters. 

I've thought about your question some more and have come up with a more direct answer. You. Each time you utter your new mantra, conservatives give more than liberals, you are elevating conservatives and attempting to show that liberals are somehow less good or caring. The score keeping can only have one reason. To prove that one group is somehow better than another. It's slightly more subtle but no less a means to put down and demean those you think are somewhat less worthy. If you read your own scriptures closely I think you might find some evidence that your god won't let you buy your way into his kingdom.


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


> I sure like this pledge from Mike Huckabee
> 
> *I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the Constitution, and the citizens of the United States:
> I will adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
> I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.
> I will advocate for a complete overhaul of our tax system. This means passing the FairTax and abolishing the IRS.
> I will support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
> I will now, and will for the duration of my presidency, promote and sign all measures leading to Obamacareâs defunding, deauthorization, and repeal.
> I will oppose amnesty and government benefits for illegal immigrants who violated our laws, repeal President Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, and secure our borders.
> I will stand for the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception until the grave. Taking this unequivocal stand includes fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.
> I will stand for the Institution of Marriage and vigorously oppose any redefinition.
> I will defend our 2nd Amendment rights and oppose gun control legislation.
> I will fight for the United States military to be the most feared, respected, and capable fighting force the world has ever known. I will restore our military infrastructure after years of abuse and neglect.
> I will stand with our friend and ally Israel in our shared fight against Radical Islam.
> I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability.
> I will end the national disgrace of failing to properly care for our veterans.
> I will protect Social Security and Medicare and never rob seniors of the benefits they were promised and forced to pay for.
> I will fight to kill Common Core and restore common sense. Education is a family function - not a federal function.
> I will support the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices. They must be committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench.
> I will fight for term limits for members of Congress and judges.*


He has made some real changes then since he was Governor here. Tax increases didn't make him no nevermind back then..... It's sad he has become such an entrenched right wing looney since he left, he really wasn't that bad when he was here.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow, 58 of ISIS down, 30K to go.
> Except we don't know who the 1st 23 were, coulda been kids they turned into ISIS against their will...
> 
> Now the Kurds are making some headway. Too bad we dont REALLY help them Too bad we're flying over doing nada.


The problem with that is terrorist organizations don't depend on a chain of command to get things done the way traditional military organizations do. Their operatives work independently once their objectives are clear. They don't require funding, supply lines, or even supervision. This won't even slow them down.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is terrorist organizations don't depend on a chain of command to get things done the way traditional military organizations do. Their operatives work independently once their objectives are clear. They don't require funding, supply lines, or even supervision. This won't even slow them down.


They don't require funding or supply lines? Then how do they get their weapons, food, medical supplies?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> They don't require funding or supply lines? Then how do they get their weapons, food, medical supplies?


How did terrorists get those things for 9/11? They improvised...


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> How did terrorists get those things for 9/11? They improvised...


What things? Where did they get money from?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> How did terrorists get those things for 9/11? They improvised...


They didn't "improvise" months of flying lessons beforehand. Somebody paid for that.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> What things? Where did they get money from?


All it took was a few airline tickets and box cutters.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> MH has no chance.


Probably a better chance than Trump. Trump knows he's not going to get the nomination, so you'd think he would have better things to do with his time.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Nice try, but they weren't speaking of child molesters.
> 
> I've thought about your question some more and have come up with a more direct answer. You. Each time you utter your new mantra, conservatives give more than liberals, you are elevating conservatives and attempting to show that liberals are somehow less good or caring. The score keeping can only have one reason. To prove that one group is somehow better than another. It's slightly more subtle but no less a means to put down and demean those you think are somewhat less worthy. If you read your own scriptures closely I think you might find some evidence that your god won't let you buy your way into his kingdom.


I was giving an example.
And as long as there's people on this board who disparage Christians-and Jewish folks too, for that matter-I'll say those same things. B/c it evidently is not duly noted, since we get disparaged daily.

I will never, however, say that one group is better than another, no matter how hard you'd like to try to say that I do. 
It appears you think your group is better?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> The problem with that is terrorist organizations don't depend on a chain of command to get things done the way traditional military organizations do. Their operatives work independently once their objectives are clear. They don't require funding, supply lines, or even supervision. This won't even slow them down.


I 'liked' your post BUT they DO require funding & a lot is coming from here, hamas(?), & other terror sponsoring groups.


----------



## Tricky Grama

JeffreyD said:


> What things? Where did they get money from?


They got TONS of equipment, weapons, etc-OURS, when Iraqi soldiers up & fled.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Now the Kurds are making some headway. Too bad we dont REALLY help them *Too bad we're flying over doing nada*.


 Reporters on the ground in Iraq and Syria tell a different story.

And about the '50' reported ISIS killed, that was in TWO minor battles, there were DOZENS of battles over the two days of that report. I didn't count, but it had to be upwards of 100 ISIS KIA per day. Thats just Iraqi ground forces, not even our count. And we're doing airstrikes in Syria helping out the Kurds immensely as well. Far from nada. Perhaps if the NeoCon Nitwits hadn't wearied the nation of wars of occupation, we'd have more willingness to take bullets for foreign nation building again.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> I 'liked' your post BUT they DO require funding & a lot is coming from here, hamas(?), & other terror sponsoring groups.


Don't get me wrong, funding is a good thing for most anything. But the point is that lack of funding isn't going to stop a terror group. That's because of what terrorism is; which is low-budget warfare. Terror groups can do a huge amount of damage on a shoestring budget.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I was giving an example.
> And as long as there's people on this board who disparage Christians-and Jewish folks too, for that matter-I'll say those same things. B/c it evidently is not duly noted, since we get disparaged daily.
> 
> I will never, however, say that one group is better than another, no matter how hard you'd like to try to say that I do.
> It appears you think your group is better?


It sounded like an attempt to misdirect but I'll take you at your word that it's the best "example" you could come up with. I'll stick with my statement that those labeled deviants and perverts are thought of as lesser beings by some.

I'll also stand by my statement that by elevating one group you demean another. You relegate them to a lesser status. You can justify however you wish ( and they did it first is poor justification for any action) but what else can repeating that conservatives give more than liberals mean but that liberals aren't as good or caring as conservatives?

And what group would that be. I fit in many. I tend not to think of groups or people as better than others. All have virtues, all have flaws. The balance is an individual thing.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> How did terrorists get those things for 9/11? They improvised...





Nevada said:


> All it took was a few airline tickets and box cutters.


:umno:

Perhaps a history review is needed here........

I posted the terrorists links on another thread about Saddam, Al Quaeda, Osama, etc. and it should be pointed out that 9/11 was years in the making and required lots of effort, money and manpower to pull it off successfully.

* The internal structures were studied for weak points, Osama did much of that himself, once he got the blueprints.

* Airport security and cockpit weak points were studied and tested on dry runs.

* Passports and ID's were obtained, travel and living accomodations for months or years.

* Please don't forget about the pilot school training. Once they were in the cockpit, all 4 flights had people who could fly the plane and operate the controls well enough to hit their targets - All but flight 93 when the passengers bravely stopped them.

It wasn't done by going to the hardware store the night before to buy a box cutter, far from it.

Underestimating your enemy is the #1 mistake.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> Perhaps a history review is needed here........
> 
> I posted the terrorists links on another thread about Saddam, Al Quaeda, Osama, etc. and it should be pointed out that 9/11 was years in the making and required lots of effort, money and manpower to pull it off successfully.
> .


 There is still no credible information that Saddam and al-queda had any sort of collaborative relationship, if thats what you're getting at.


----------



## farmrbrown

Not really the point about funding and boxcutters, but I already posted the evidence from a recent book on another thread.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/politics/539442-ten-months-later-still-no-strategy-isis-6.html
(posts #110 & #117)

It's funny though how people overlook or ignore clues about someone like Saddam's personality and actions that reveal what he was doing throughout his life.

He may have been a religious hypocrite in his personal life, but a cursory look at his attempt at rebuilding King Nebuchanezzar's Babylon empire, should tell you his contacts, power and influence were larger than we've been told.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Reporters on the ground in Iraq and Syria tell a different story.
> 
> And about the '50' reported ISIS killed, that was in TWO minor battles, there were DOZENS of battles over the two days of that report. I didn't count, but it had to be upwards of 100 ISIS KIA per day. Thats just Iraqi ground forces, not even our count. And we're doing airstrikes in Syria helping out the Kurds immensely as well. Far from nada. Perhaps if the NeoCon Nitwits hadn't wearied the nation of wars of occupation, we'd have more willingness to take bullets for foreign nation building again.


Don't have an 'up to today' report but you know there were little more than a dozen/day and during desert storm there were 1125/day. Had been reported out of that doz/day most were just flyovers. That might have had a little effect but its not going to do much i the long run.
So you "didn't count" but you think it had to "be upward of 100 ISIS/day". Sorry, but we've long learned not to go by just what you think.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> It sounded like an attempt to misdirect but I'll take you at your word that it's the best "example" you could come up with. I'll stick with my statement that those labeled deviants and perverts are thought of as lesser beings by some.
> 
> I'll also stand by my statement that by elevating one group you demean another. You relegate them to a lesser status. You can justify however you wish ( and they did it first is poor justification for any action) but what else can repeating that conservatives give more than liberals mean but that liberals aren't as good or caring as conservatives?
> 
> And what group would that be. I fit in many. I tend not to think of groups or people as better than others. All have virtues, all have flaws. The balance is an individual thing.


Tell ya what. You get your other non-conserve friends (b/c I can't recall right now who disparages Christians, you or the others) to stop the Christian bashing & we'll stop giving examples of how ya'll are wrong.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Tell ya what. You get your other non-conserve friends (b/c I can't recall right now who disparages Christians, you or the others) to stop the Christian bashing & we'll stop giving examples of how ya'll are wrong.


You first. Isn't it the Christian way to turn the other cheek?


----------



## Tricky Grama

http://joemiller.us/2015/06/experts...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-ca899f7acf-230980529

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could be in for a rough ride when they go before the House Armed Services Committee this week to explain the Obama administration&#8217;s strategy toward Iraq.

There is a widespread and growing criticism that the &#8220;No Boots on the Ground Plus Light Airstrikes&#8221; approach has failed to drive ISIS back from its gains in Iraq and has enabled the radical Islamist terror group to achieve record recruiting.

The administration is under pressure to change its failing strategy for Iraq and to at least articulate a more effective approach. So far, President Obama has refused to go beyond the use of trainers (no combat role), some equipping and air support seemingly disconnected from the local actions on the ground.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> So you "didn't count" but you think it had to "be upward of 100 ISIS/day". Sorry, but we've long learned not to go by just what you think.


 You're free to read the reports yourself, otherwise just continue to get your news from opinion sites. And by the way, the latest 24-hour airstrike report was 25 attacks, not 'a dozen mostly flybys'. I don't know where you are getting your info, maybe you are just making things up, but it does not appear to be accurate.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

Tricky Grama said:


> Tell ya what. You get your other non-conserve friends (b/c I can't recall right now who disparages Christians, you or the others) to stop the Christian bashing & we'll stop giving examples of how ya'll are wrong.


TG, I promise not to bash Christians, if that helps.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> It sounded like an attempt to misdirect but I'll take you at your word that it's the best "example" you could come up with. I'll stick with my statement that those labeled deviants and perverts are thought of as lesser beings by some.
> 
> I'll also stand by my statement that by elevating one group you demean another. You relegate them to a lesser status. You can justify however you wish ( and they did it first is poor justification for any action) but what else can repeating that conservatives give more than liberals mean but that liberals aren't as good or caring as conservatives?
> 
> And what group would that be. I fit in many. I tend not to think of groups or people as better than others. All have virtues, all have flaws. The balance is an individual thing.


So are you ok w/keeping score at kids games? Wining/losing in sports events? Should groups get awards that others don't? Should the military get medals?
Your 2nd paragraph sounds too much like 'trophies for all' mentality. Many groups DO MORE STUFF than do others. Personally, I'll take the charities that strive for help for the human condition over a # of atheist groups heck bent on taking away our religious liberty. 
Yet, some of those groups WILL get awards, most likely. As will the charities. 
So, knowing we have a few agnostics/atheists/pagans here, I'm sorry if you belong to an atheist group that is out to do away w/belief in God. If you have a fund raiser, I prolly won't donate either $, time, or blood. But I in no way think i'm BETTER than you are. I'd hope the same.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> It sounded like an attempt to misdirect but I'll take you at your word that it's the best "example" you could come up with. I'll stick with my statement that those labeled deviants and perverts are thought of as lesser beings by some.
> 
> I'll also stand by my statement that by elevating one group you demean another. You relegate them to a lesser status. You can justify however you wish ( and they did it first is poor justification for any action) but what else can repeating that conservatives give more than liberals mean but that liberals aren't as good or caring as conservatives?
> 
> And what group would that be. I fit in many. I tend not to think of groups or people as better than others. All have virtues, all have flaws. The balance is an individual thing.


Misdirect? I was responding to your post # 356:

Originally Posted by mmoetc View Post #356
On these pages I've seen those that haven't followed some religous orthodoxy referred to as deviants, perverts and suffering from mental illness.
So I said 'pervert' to me is a child molester, for instance.


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> You're free to read the reports yourself, otherwise just continue to get your news from opinion sites. And by the way, the latest 24-hour airstrike report was 25 attacks, not 'a dozen mostly flybys'. I don't know where you are getting your info, maybe you are just making things up, but it does not appear to be accurate.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hands-tied-in-frustrating-fight-against-isis/ 
14/day 

http://fightersweep.com/2385/us-pilots-our-hands-are-tied/
14/day
We are not taking the fight to these guys,&#8221; said one A-10 pilot. &#8220;We haven&#8217;t targeted their centers of gravity in Raqqa. All the roads between Syria and Iraq are still intact with trucks flowing freely.&#8221;


http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/
14/day

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dg...y-sights-but-couldnt-get-clearance-to-engage/
14/day


----------



## greg273

What irresponsible journalism in your 'FighterSweep' link... first off, its not 'a dozen airstrikes a day',, its more than DOUBLE that, thats just actual STRIKES, not total SORTIES which incliudes recon, refuel, electronic warfare, etc. I really cannot stand when some nitwit says 'a dozen airstrikes equals a dozen sorties'... shows me the author has no clue. And the guy in the piece complains about 'not hitting Raqqa', when we have attacked it 50+ times since then. Get some up to date links, and actually READ THEM.


Here is an example of what you seem to be forgetting, and this is admittedly from the very beginning of the action, it should tell you how woefully underreported the fight against ISIS is...


> What goes underreported and, hence, underappreciated, is the magnitude of the overall air operation being conducted in support of or in addition to the actual air strikes against targets on the ground. Simply put, behind every successful air strike is a massive supporting infrastructure of aircraft, ground operations and planning activities. Air strikes are not conducted in isolation. Every strike package consists not only of bomb-carrying aircraft but others providing the protection, electronic warfare support, aerial refueling, battle space management and intelligence. *The 240 strikes in Iraq and Syria were supported by some 3,800 aircraft sorties, 1,700 tanker flights and over 700 ISR sorties. *There have also been thousands of flights by transport aircraft, C-17s and C-130s making up the largest fraction, providing humanitarian relief but also moving personnel and essential supplies into the region.


 http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...sis_is_much_bigger_than_you_think_107484.html


And the guy complaining about 'rules of engagement' should know this isn't massed airstrikes on columns of troops, APCS, artillery or tanks. This is a complex fight against an enemy that hides among civilians, and our military is being VERY careful to not bomb indiscriminately.
Centcom said it best,



> " this is a long-term fight, and we will not alienate civilians, the Iraqi government or our coalition partners by striking targets indiscriminately."


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> What irresponsible journalism in your 'FighterSweep' link... first off, its not 'a dozen airstrikes a day',, its more than DOUBLE that, thats just actual STRIKES, not total SORTIES which incliudes recon, refuel, electronic warfare, etc. I really cannot stand when some nitwit says 'a dozen airstrikes equals a dozen sorties'... shows me the author has no clue. And the guy in the piece complains about 'not hitting Raqqa', when we have attacked it 50+ times since then. Get some up to date links, and actually READ THEM.
> 
> 
> Here is an example of what you seem to be forgetting, and this is admittedly from the very beginning of the action, it should tell you how woefully underreported the fight against ISIS is...
> 
> 
> http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...sis_is_much_bigger_than_you_think_107484.html
> 
> 
> And the guy complaining about 'rules of engagement' should know this isn't massed airstrikes on columns of troops, APCS, artillery or tanks. This is a complex fight against an enemy that hides among civilians, and our military is being VERY careful to not bomb indiscriminately.
> Centcom said it best,


Two things stand out to me.

First, they don't list or acknowledge their sources of their information. 
Second, I manufacture parts for military and civilian aircraft. When aircraft are being used, they require standard maintenance. Parts are need for replacement. More parts are ordered when the military engages more....that is not happening. And since I am the only manufacturer of certain patented parts, I can see clearly when our military is getting ready to build up, my parts sales go up, again, that is not happening. 

One last comment. The pilots and ground crews say they are not seeing much of a push in any area except leaving.


----------



## greg273

Here ya go tricky, another 2 days, another 122 ISIS terrorists KILLED by Iraqi forces, and another 24 allied airstrikes in the last 24 hours. 

http://iswiraq.blogspot.com/

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/


----------



## Tricky Grama

Very good but too little too late, as I said in earlier post. Who has Faluja, Mosel,Ramadi, 1/2 of Iraq, etc? 
BTW, gave ya several links & you still whined. Didja open the "Dept of Defense" site??? Where does yours come from.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> Didja open the "Dept of Defense" site??? Where does yours come from.


 Look Tricky! Another day, another 22 airstrikes, more ISIS dead. I thought you said they weren't doing anything over there?? 

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=129089


----------



## Tricky Grama

When they get to 1125/day, like in desert storm, get back to me. Any less than that...its just wasting time & $ as well as sowing we have no leader.


----------



## greg273

Tricky Grama said:


> When they get to 1125/day, like in desert storm, get back to me. Any less than that...its just wasting time & $ as well as sowing we have no leader.


 This isn't 'Desert Storm' with columns of Iraqi armor sitting out in an open desert so you may as well drop the comparison. 
And 'wasting money' was invading in the first place, thinking we could impose American-style democracy via gunpoint on a culture we knew zilch about.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> So are you ok w/keeping score at kids games? Wining/losing in sports events? Should groups get awards that others don't? Should the military get medals?
> Your 2nd paragraph sounds too much like 'trophies for all' mentality. Many groups DO MORE STUFF than do others. Personally, I'll take the charities that strive for help for the human condition over a # of atheist groups heck bent on taking away our religious liberty.
> Yet, some of those groups WILL get awards, most likely. As will the charities.
> So, knowing we have a few agnostics/atheists/pagans here, I'm sorry if you belong to an atheist group that is out to do away w/belief in God. If you have a fund raiser, I prolly won't donate either $, time, or blood. But I in no way think i'm BETTER than you are. I'd hope the same.


Sure. Competitive sports and keeping score go hand in hand. But I've never thought of charity or charitable giving as a competative sport. Ive never thought because someone could throw a football farther, hit a baseball harder or shoot a basketball better it indicated anything about that person other than that they had developed a good skill set in those activities. It doesn't make them a better or worse person.

And I'll donate my time and efforts when I do to those organizations that I deem to do good works and spend resources wisely. Just as you don't wish to donate to those groups working against religous intrusion, I won't donate to groups that spend most of their resources touting religious intrusion into my life and government. A good thing about living in the country we do. We have that choice.

Hope can be a good thing.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Misdirect? I was responding to your post # 356:
> 
> Originally Posted by mmoetc View Post #356
> On these pages I've seen those that haven't followed some religous orthodoxy referred to as deviants, perverts and suffering from mental illness.
> So I said 'pervert' to me is a child molester, for instance.


As I said, I'll take you at your word that that was the best example you could come up with. Others have used those words to denigrate other groups and people and might give other examples.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Sure. Competitive sports and keeping score go hand in hand. But I've never thought of charity or charitable giving as a competative sport. Ive never thought because someone could throw a football farther, hit a baseball harder or shoot a basketball better it indicated anything about that person other than that they had developed a good skill set in those activities. It doesn't make them a better or worse person.
> 
> And I'll donate my time and efforts when I do to those organizations that I deem to do good works and spend resources wisely. Just as you don't wish to donate to those groups working against religous intrusion, I won't donate to groups that spend most of their resources touting religious intrusion into my life and government. A good thing about living in the country we do. We have that choice.
> 
> Hope can be a good thing.


Those groups seem to be better. They got the 'win'. 
I'll go out on a limb here & say groups that are helping mankind are doing 'better things' than those that have only the mission to squelch others' beliefs. IMHO.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Those groups seem to be better. They got the 'win'.
> I'll go out on a limb here & say groups that are helping mankind are doing 'better things' than those that have only the mission to squelch others' beliefs. IMHO.


Better than what? Better at fundraising. Who cares who wins as long as the money does good, right. I'd say Doctors without Borders does more good for mankind than the Westboro Baptist Church. See, we can probably agree on some things.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Better than what? Better at fundraising. Who cares who wins as long as the money does good, right. I'd say Doctors without Borders does more good for mankind than the Westboro Baptist Church. See, we can probably agree on some things.


Groups that are doing things for mankind are doing 'better things'. "Better things" than only striving to squelch the beliefs of the majority of the country. If you'd look at all the atheist groups-some were linked in another thread-their sole purpose is to squelch the beliefs of this Judeo-Christian nation.
So I said, IMHO, the groups that are doing things that better mankind are doing "better things". Doctors w/o Borders is NOT an atheist group, btw. 
What I was speaking of was atheist groups v/s non-atheist groups. Which was the point being made by most everyone. Remember someone stated they'd just not seen that many hosp, etc built by atheists? So then off we go on 1 group 'better than' the other.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Groups that are doing things for mankind are doing 'better things'. "Better things" than only striving to squelch the beliefs of the majority of the country. If you'd look at all the atheist groups-some were linked in another thread-their sole purpose is to squelch the beliefs of this Judeo-Christian nation.
> So I said, IMHO, the groups that are doing things that better mankind are doing "better things". Doctors w/o Borders is NOT an atheist group, btw.


Judeo-Christian beliefs like those of the Westboro Baptists? Or any of the other churches or religously affiliated groups who wish to define the laws for all if us by their religous beliefs. One of the things I really like about our constitution is that recognizes the limitations of the majority and respects the rights of the minority. There's much good in groups like the ACLU which stand up for those rights.

Doctors without Borders is a fine, non secular group. I've been known to help a doctor I know who occasionally goes on a mission for them. He identifies as an atheist and has had nothing but great things to say about the other other doctors and health workers of all religions he works with. Some of them are undoubtedly even conservatives.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Judeo-Christian beliefs like those of the Westboro Baptists? Or any of the other churches or religously affiliated groups who wish to define the laws for all if us by their religous beliefs. One of the things I really like about our constitution is that recognizes the limitations of the majority and respects the rights of the minority. There's much good in groups like the ACLU which stand up for those rights.
> 
> Doctors without Borders is a fine, non secular group. I've been known to help a doctor I know who occasionally goes on a mission for them. He identifies as an atheist and has had nothing but great things to say about the other other doctors and health workers of all religions he works with. Some of them are undoubtedly even conservatives.


The doc I knew that did this was a roided up, bike riding adrenaline junkie.


----------



## MO_cows

The WBC is basically one family. When they come out and march, that's pretty much all of them. Probably less than 100 screwed up people. Don't insult our intelligence by using them as the poster child for organized religion. They are a cult and a small one at that, just good at raising money and getting themselves in the media.


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> The WBC is basically one family. When they come out and march, that's pretty much all of them. Probably less than 100 screwed up people. Don't insult our intelligence by using them as the poster child for organized religion. They are a cult and a small one at that, just good at raising money and getting themselves in the media.


But I thought being good at raising money was the point.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> The doc I knew that did this was a roided up, bike riding adrenaline junkie.


I'm guessing the people he helped didn't care.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> I'm guessing the people he helped didn't care.


Maybe you missed my point. People do things for a variety of reasons. This guy liked the thrill of being in war torn hotspots and the danger involved being where they were.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Maybe you missed my point. People do things for a variety of reasons. This guy liked the thrill of being in war torn hotspots and the danger involved being where they were.


No, I got your point. Mine was that people truly in need usually don't care where that help comes from. Conservative, liberal , Christian or atheist. A man in need of medical care or food doesn't really care who donated the money for the bandage or bag of rice. All the talk of who gives more misses the point that helping people is good no matter who is giving.


----------



## greg273

MO_cows said:


> The WBC is basically one family. When they come out and march, that's pretty much all of them. Probably less than 100 screwed up people. Don't insult our intelligence by using them as the poster child for organized religion. They are a cult and a small one at that, just good at raising money and getting themselves in the media.


 And yet if you go check out Westboro Baptist Church website, they claim they are just following the scriptures. They've got page after page of long-winded, self-righteous explanations about how they are truly doing Gods will.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> And yet if you go check out Westboro Baptist Church website, they claim they are just following the scriptures. They've got page after page of long-winded, self-righteous explanations about how they are truly doing Gods will.


There have been false prophets since the beginning of time. 

You need to improve your ability to reconize them.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> There have been false prophets since the beginning of time.
> 
> You need to improve your ability to reconize them.


 I think you're on your way to a realization about Muslim radicals... see how WBC twists the meanings of the book to fit their agenda? Same thing the jihadis do. The problem is not Christians, or the Bible, or Muslims, or the Koran, but people who take those words and use them to spread misery in the world.


----------



## Nevada

None of the above.

Honestly, none of those options even come close to the mark. If that's your understanding of what might be going on in Iraq then just forget it. Your understanding of the situation is so poor you can't even carry on a conversation about it.

The conflict is about Sunnis having a voice in the Iraqi government. We took that away during debaathification, and they want it back. They want a say in government, they want a fair distribution of Iraqi oil revenue, and they want their old jobs back. They're willing to kill for it.

When they talk about which areas the Iraqi forces control, they're really talking about which areas Shiites control. That's because the Iraqi military is Shiite. Those people have no national identity, at least as we understand it. Only Shiite or Sunni.

No matter what we do over there we're taking sides in an ethnic conflict. Even worse than that, if we side with the Shiites (the Iraqi forces) in a ground war we'll be fighting along side of Iranian troops. If we're fighting along side of Iranian troops, we should be seriously questioning our strategy.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

Tricky Grama said:


> Groups that are doing things for mankind are doing 'better things'. "Better things" than only striving to squelch the beliefs of the majority of the country. If you'd look at all the atheist groups-some were linked in another thread-their sole purpose is to squelch the beliefs of this Judeo-Christian nation.
> So I said, IMHO, the groups that are doing things that better mankind are doing "better things". Doctors w/o Borders is NOT an atheist group, btw.
> What I was speaking of was atheist groups v/s non-atheist groups. Which was the point being made by most everyone. Remember somone stated they'd just not seen that many hosp, etc built by atheists? So then off we go on 1 group 'better than' the other.


I will add that I am grateful for the good work done by religious groups and am glad they take the lead in many projects useful to my community. I can't speak for what atheist groups do or don't do, but I know that I and others with no religious faith routinely volunteer time and money through Christian organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Boy Scouts of America or St. John's Social Services to support worthy local causes. Probably nobody acknowledges the contributions of atheists who work alongside Christians to build houses for the poor, operate food pantries or mentor at-risk youth, but who cares about credit as long as good works get done?


----------



## HDRider

I'll have to take issue Nevada. I know you are an expert on middle eastern geopolitics, having studied and lived in the regions for decades. 

My modest little poll, ever how poorly constructed, was not about Iraq. 

So feel free to start your own, better informed poll. I'll be happy to vote on it. 

Thank you for your enlightened perspective and input.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> I'll have to take issue Nevada. I know you are an expert on middle eastern geopolitics, having studied and lived in the regions for decades.
> 
> My modest little poll, ever how poorly constructed, was not about Iraq.
> 
> So feel free to start your own, better informed poll. I'll be happy to vote on it.
> 
> Thank you for your enlightened perspective and input.


I wasn't aware that the US was contemplating military action anywhere but Iraq.


----------



## HDRider

greg273 said:


> I think you're on your way to a realization about Muslim radicals... see how WBC twists the meanings of the book to fit their agenda? Same thing the jihadis do. The problem is not Christians, or the Bible, or Muslims, or the Koran, but people who take those words and use them to spread misery in the world.


One little church does not a movement make. Get back to me when they take up arms and blow up innocents by the score, daily, attempt to overthrow goverments, cut off heads, burn people in cages and a few more atrocities, then we can talk about accountability and the root of their carnage and violence. 

It is clear Islamic terrorist have co-opted Islam for their own end.

Plus, your continued condescension toward those you view as less enlightened than yourself is tiresome. 

Many of us work with Muslims every day. We have Muslim friends too.


----------



## greg273

HDRider said:


> One little church does not a movement make. Get back to me when they take up arms and blow up innocents by the score, daily, attempt to overthrow goverments, cut off heads, burn people in cages and a few more atrocities, then we can talk about accountability and the root of their carnage and violence.
> 
> It is clear Islamic terrorist have co-opted Islam for their own end.
> 
> Plus, your continued condescension toward those you view as less enlightened than yourself is tiresome.
> 
> Many of us work with Muslims every day. We have Muslim friends too.


 So we are at war with radicals, or Islam in general? Obviously many members here feel it is the latter, so I was just curious, since you started the poll, what your vote was.

.....Nevermind, I see you answered on another thread.....


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> This isn't 'Desert Storm' with columns of Iraqi armor sitting out in an open desert so you may as well drop the comparison.
> And 'wasting money' was invading in the first place, thinking we could impose American-style democracy via gunpoint on a culture we knew zilch about.


Ok, then...800/day during the Iraq was. The 1 that won.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> There have been false prophets since the beginning of time.
> 
> You need to improve your ability to reconize them.


And others might say you need to improve yours. Not a knock on you but a commentary about why those on the outside looking in are often confused and concerned about those Christian values we're supposed to base our laws on. If Christians can't agree what of the rest of us?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Judeo-Christian beliefs like those of the Westboro Baptists? Or any of the other churches or religously affiliated groups who wish to define the laws for all if us by their religous beliefs. One of the things I really like about our constitution is that recognizes the limitations of the majority and respects the rights of the minority. There's much good in groups like the ACLU which stand up for those rights.
> 
> Doctors without Borders is a fine, non secular group. I've been known to help a doctor I know who occasionally goes on a mission for them. He identifies as an atheist and has had nothing but great things to say about the other other doctors and health workers of all religions he works with. Some of them are undoubtedly even conservatives.


Why would you bring up the WBC -those handful of idiots? Why? Do you think they represent Judeo-Christian values? If you knew anything about them you'd know they go after Jewish folks 'bout as hard as they do the gay folks. They take no donations anymore, they live in the 'church' b/c they cannot sustain themselves on what ever little $ they have. There are websites to counter them-w/tips on what to do when they show up, etc. Rumor was they were going to Charleston to picket the funerals there. Disgusting. But tnx for reminding me that by bringing up WBC, you have no idea what 'Judeo-Christian values' mean . Still. After "HUNDREDS" of HT discussions...

Judeo-Christian values are not from ORGANIZED religion. I would suggest reading some of the compilations of Jefferson, Madison.

The only group that calls itself -falsely however-religious & wants to impose their laws-is Islam, a theocratic political group bent on conquering the world under sharia law.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> The WBC is basically one family. When they come out and march, that's pretty much all of them. Probably less than 100 screwed up people. Don't insult our intelligence by using them as the poster child for organized religion. They are a cult and a small one at that, just good at raising money and getting themselves in the media.


Not good at raising $$-I got on a website that says they don't take donations...never found out why, betcha something to do w/exemption?


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And others might say you need to improve yours. Not a knock on you but a commentary about why those on the outside looking in are often confused and concerned about those Christian values we're supposed to base our laws on. If Christians can't agree what of the rest of us?


I will readily admit the danger of false prophets looms large. 

That is why many shun charismatic leaders, mega churches, TV evangelist and many forms of organized religion and seek a personal relationship with God. 

Life is confusing.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Why would you bring up the WBC -those handful of idiots? Why? Do you think they represent Judeo-Christian values? If you knew anything about them you'd know they go after Jewish folks 'bout as hard as they do the gay folks. They take no donations anymore, they live in the 'church' b/c they cannot sustain themselves on what ever little $ they have. There are websites to counter them-w/tips on what to do when they show up, etc. Rumor was they were going to Charleston to picket the funerals there. Disgusting. But tnx for reminding me that by bringing up WBC, you have no idea what 'Judeo-Christian values' mean . Still. After "HUNDREDS" of HT discussions...
> 
> Judeo-Christian values are not from ORGANIZED religion. I would suggest reading some of the compilations of Jefferson, Madison.
> 
> The only group that calls itself -falsely however-religious & wants to impose their laws-is Islam, a theocratic political group bent on conquering the world under sharia law.


Why not them. They claim their beliefs are a valid and back them up with their interpretation of your scriptures just like the many other Christians who espouse their beliefs. Beliefs are beliefs. I don't doubt yours, I disagree with them. I don't doubt theirs are valid to them. I do disagree with them.

I've read much of, about and from the founding fathers. They seem as conflicted about religion then as many are today. 

There seems to be a fairly religous push to define marriage for the rest of us based on something.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Not good at raising $$-I got on a website that says they don't take donations...never found out why, betcha something to do w/exemption?


Their funding seems somewhat obscure. Much of it seems to come from the 30% tithe required of church members which can be, surprise, taken as a charitable tax deduction by those same church members who use the money to travel and spread their message. 

I could just as easily have used the good reverend Dollar and his quest for a $65m transport to spread his message or the legions of evangelists, tele and tent, who finance their lifestyles with charitable dollars. Some where at least one of them must be a "good" Christian.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Their funding seems somewhat obscure. Much of it seems to come from the 30% tithe required of church members which can be, surprise, taken as a charitable tax deduction by those same church members who use the money to travel and spread their message.
> 
> I could just as easily have used the good reverend Dollar and his quest for a $65m transport to spread his message or the legions of evangelists, tele and tent, who finance their lifestyles with charitable dollars. Some where at least one of them must be a "good" Christian.


Just seems strange to keep bringing up WBC, so many of our non-conserve friends here do. Why? Its a HANDFUL of idiots. Maybe less than a dozen in 1 family. I can see citing the Rev Dollar, bilking so many out of hard earned $$$. I feel folks like him will get their 'due'. But, I don't know what kind of mixed message he was preaching?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Just seems strange to keep bringing up WBC, so many of our non-conserve friends here do. Why? Its a HANDFUL of idiots. Maybe less than a dozen in 1 family. I can see citing the Rev Dollar, bilking so many out of hard earned $$$. I feel folks like him will get their 'due'. But, I don't know what kind of mixed message he was preaching?


And Jesus, I believe, started with only 12 Disciples. As long as every Christian is free and encouraged to interpret the words of your bible as they see fit all interpretations have equal validity and weight. They could be right, you could be wrong. They could be wrong, you could be right. As far as I understand only one being really knows.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> And Jesus, I believe, started with only 12 Disciples. As long as every Christian is free and encouraged to interpret the words of your bible as they see fit all interpretations have equal validity and weight. They could be right, you could be wrong. They could be wrong, you could be right. As far as I understand only one being really knows.


I am willing to take my chances.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> I am willing to take my chances.


As are they.


----------



## M88A1

You can question the war machine...Defense Industry......US Gov.....but the question still remains. After 3 combat deployments, Islamic ideals, values and culture is 180 degree opposite of ours.


----------



## Nevada

M88A1 said:


> You can question the war machine...Defense Industry......US Gov.....but the question still remains. After 3 combat deployments, Islamic ideals, values and culture is 180 degree opposite of ours.


Didn't we know that 12 years ago?


----------



## M88A1

No, I don't think the general public knows that...I read the poll and went to the end to add my 2 cents. Going back looking at your posts then being quoted by you, I realize you cant handle the polls basic question. You could trace back to WWI treaty how the nations of the middle east got screwed and blame that. I could blame all this on Jimmy Carter. The poll question remains.


----------



## Nevada

M88A1 said:


> No, I don't think the general public knows that...


I'm amazed at that assertion. Do you also think the US government didn't know?


----------



## M88A1

I'm not addressing the US Gov on this forum. I'm letting the people know what my experience was with the people and culture. IMO Islamic culture and teachings will never mesh with Western culture.


----------



## Nevada

M88A1 said:


> I'm not addressing the US Gov on this forum. I'm letting the people know what my experience was with the people and culture. IMO Islamic culture and teachings will never mesh with Western culture.


Oh, I think it will eventually. We have a lot more in common that a lot of people give them credit for. They like cell phones, laptops, & mp3 players. They also have Internet connectivity. The Internet is starting to bring us closer together. I suspect that Saudi Arabia will be the last hold-out, since they have Mecca & Medina.

A lot of places that seemed strange and far-away when I was growing up in the 50s don't seem so strange today. It will take time, but we're growing together.


----------



## Guest

M88A1

Dang a $2,000,000. Tow vehicle I need one of them here. &#55357;&#56907;


----------



## M88A1

When and how long have you lived in an Islamic country? I spent my last deployment living on an Iraqi Army (IA) base advising the IA. We had interpreters (2 were born in middle east but US citizens) the other 6 were Iraqi locals. My opinion is well based, we already had bad relations with most Islamic countries regardless of what political power is in the white house. Lets deal with the here and now, not 2003 or 1979.


----------



## Nevada

M88A1 said:


> When and how long have you lived in an Islamic country? I spent my last deployment living on an Iraqi Army (IA) base advising the IA.


I used to live & work in Saudi Arabia. I lived in Jeddah, but I had a travel letter and moved around the kingdom frequently. I lived and worked among the Saudi people. Here's a photo I took of a Radio Shack store, located at the Al Tahlia shopping mall in Jeddah.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Oh, I think it will eventually. We have a lot more in common that a lot of people give them credit for. They like cell phones, laptops, & mp3 players. They also have Internet connectivity. The Internet is starting to bring us closer together. I suspect that Saudi Arabia will be the last hold-out, since they have Mecca & Medina.
> 
> A lot of places that seemed strange and far-away when I was growing up in the 50s don't seem so strange today. It will take time, but we're growing together.


There has to be equal rights for women and gays, that will take some major compromises. Until they allow women to choose how they want to live there lives and gays the same it won't happen. The internet is great it does expose a lot.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> There has to be equal rights for women and gays, that will take some major compromises. Until they allow women to choose how they want to live there lives and gays the same it won't happen. The internet is great it does expose a lot.


Keeping women in abayas and out of the workplace isn't about equal rights. The fact is that it's effective at avoiding the problems that they were designed to avoid. When women understand why the rules are in place they recognize that they aren't there to subjugate women, but to preserve the family unit. You have to admit, we haven't done well at preserving the family unit in the USA. They question if women's rights is worth it. It's a fair question.


----------



## wiscto

Edit: I have been warned about personal attacks. This may have been one in the eyes of the moderators, even though they deleted separate posts which had nothing to do with individuals.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Keeping women in abayas and out of the workplace isn't about equal rights. The fact is that it's effective at avoiding the problems that they were designed to avoid. When women understand why the rules are in place they recognize that they aren't there to subjugate women, but to preserve the family unit. You have to admit, we haven't done well at preserving the family unit in the USA. They question if women's rights is worth it. It's a fair question.


What is the punishment for adultery or if a women gets raped here is a list..
List of crimesEdit
Saudi law allows the death penalty for many crimes. For example:

Adultery (Unmarried adulterers can be sentenced to 100 lashes, married ones can be sentenced to stoning.)
Apostasy (Apostates are sentenced to beheading but are usually given three days to repent and return to Islam.)
Armed robbery
Blasphemy
Burglary
Carjacking
Aircraft hijacking
Drug smuggling
Fornication
Home invasion
Sodomy, homosexuality, or lesbianism (If a man or woman is sodomized by their own consent, then they will also be sentenced to death along with the sodomizer)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia


----------



## wiscto

no really said:


> What is the punishment for adultery or if a women gets raped here is a list..
> List of crimesEdit
> Saudi law allows the death penalty for many crimes. For example:
> 
> Adultery (Unmarried adulterers can be sentenced to 100 lashes, married ones can be sentenced to stoning.)
> Apostasy (Apostates are sentenced to beheading but are usually given three days to repent and return to Islam.)
> Armed robbery
> Blasphemy
> Burglary
> Carjacking
> Aircraft hijacking
> Drug smuggling
> Fornication
> Home invasion
> Sodomy, homosexuality, or lesbianism (If a man or woman is sodomized by their own consent, then they will also be sentenced to death along with the sodomizer)
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Arabia


Meanwhile the men commit adultery fairly often...by raping foreign laborers who came from isolated regions and had no idea what a *********** Saudi Arabia is.


----------



## Nevada

wiscto said:


> Move to Raqqa. You'd fit right in.


I can only point out that you can't really expect them to understand us when you refuse to understand them. The process of finding common ground is a 2-way street.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Saudi law allows the death penalty for many crimes. For example:


True. Criminal penalties are taken directly from their holy book. They believe anything different is not following the word of their religion. That's going to be difficult to get them to change. Look at the resistance we have here in the USA over gay marriage and the conflict with religion.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> True. Criminal penalties are taken directly from their holy book. They believe anything different is not following the word of their religion. That's going to be difficult to change.


Than how the heck do you feel we could ever be close to them? What they do is barbaric.


----------



## wiscto

Nevada said:


> I can only point out that you can't really expect them to understand us when you refuse to understand them. The process of finding common ground is a 2-way street.


I understood everything you said. I understand them. They, believe that women cannot be free and must be controlled in order to protect civilization from immorality. I get it. I disagree. I think it's disgusting. I think it's irrational. And I think if their men were any better at controlling themselves than their women, they wouldn't have such a high rape rate. Oh but of course, in Saudi Arabia it's the woman's fault. 

Just like you apparently believe that our problems should be put squarely on our women. I think that's a sad, sick joke.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Than how the heck do you feel we could ever be close to them? What they do is barbaric.


Look at it this way: people on Europe think we're barbaric for having and using the death penalty. We don't care what they think of us for that, yet we still have a lot in common with them.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Look at it this way: people on Europe think we're barbaric for having and using the death penalty. We don't care what they think of us for that, yet we still have a lot in common with them.


That is one silly attempt at a diversion. Do you truly believe that women are better off kept isolated? Do you believe gays should die for being gay? 

I personally have huge issues with misogyny and anyone who views it as proper is sick.


----------



## wiscto

Nevada said:


> Look at it this way: people on Europe think we're barbaric for having and using the death penalty. We don't care what they think of us for that, *yet we still have a lot in common with them.*


Because in every other way we are similar.... We have free education, democracies, women who don't have to conceal themselves, women who can be doctors and men who don't try to stop them for the sake of their own weakness and insecurity anymore, freedom of speech, common ancestors, mostly secular government, and royalty has been mostly removed from power and is now just a sideshow...one that oddly enough Americans love even more than Europeans. Even our religious people practice more or less the same religion, as is the case with Central and South America. Not to mention, many states do not have the death penalty. 

On the other hand. Saudi-Arabia practices slave labor on a massive scale by fooling people from isolated/desperate regions of the world into believing they are just going overseas for a job opportunity, women must conceal themselves and those who speak against it are threatened with mutilation and death, children can be raped as long as its under the correct circumstances, their monarchy is in power, their monarchy is considered to be the worst perpetrators of human trafficking and sex slavery (including pedophilia) in the world, they do NOT believe in freedom of religion, and they aren't exactly fond of Christians, and they were the most well represented country on the 9/11 hijacker list.

Don't you worry. I understand my enemy....


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> That is one silly attempt at a diversion. Do you truly believe that women are better off kept isolated? Do you believe gays should die for being gay?
> 
> I personally have huge issues with misogyny and anyone who views it as proper is sick.


As I said, it's not about women being better off. It's about preserving the family unit and following their holy book.


----------



## wiscto

Nevada said:


> As I said, it's not about women being better off. It's about preserving the family unit and following their holy book.


That's ludicrous. The family unit has done pretty well historically without the need for abusive laws or a watering down of the talent pool. And I'm sorry, but are you a doctor? Because I can think of two women I graduated high-school with off the top of my head who are.... Equality is necessary. This country is smart enough to come up with better solutions. In my own little circle of family and friends, people are already starting to work out solutions where a family member is home when the kids are.


----------



## Nevada

wiscto said:


> Because in every other way we are similar.... We have free education, democracies, women who don't have to conceal themselves, women who can be doctors and men who don't try to stop them for the sake of their own weakness and insecurity anymore, freedom of speech, common ancestors, mostly secular government, and royalty has been mostly removed from power and is now just a sideshow...one that oddly enough Americans love even more than Europeans. Even our religious people practice more or less the same religion, as is the case with Central and South America. Not to mention, many states do not have the death penalty.
> 
> On the other hand. Saudi-Arabia practices slave labor on a massive scale by fooling people from isolated/desperate regions of the world into believing they are just going overseas for a job opportunity, women must conceal themselves and those who speak against it are threatened with mutilation and death, children can be raped as long as its under the correct circumstances, their monarchy is in power, their monarchy is considered to be the worst perpetrators of human trafficking and sex slavery (including pedophilia) in the world, they do NOT believe in freedom of religion, and they aren't exactly fond of Christians, and they were the most well represented country on the 9/11 hijacker list.
> 
> Don't you worry. I understand my enemy....


Look, I don't like it any better than you do. I'll be the first to stand up for women's rights, and I think their excuse that they're only following their holy book is weak. I'm not the one you need to convince. You need to convince them.

To give you an idea of what you're up against just look at the religious backlash over gay marriage. They don't care of it's fair and they don't care about constitutional rights, all they care about is that the Bible seems against it. Just try to talk a Christian fundamentalist into accepting gay marriage and you'll understand what you're up against.

The Muslims in the middle east, even the ones who aren't radicalized, are very sincere in their beliefs. They have also lived their entire lives in a society that follows the holy book to the letter. They believe that living any other way is against their religion. Now you tell them they they are wrong. Do you really expect them to accept that and change overnight? Would you?


----------



## Nevada

wiscto said:


> That's ludicrous. The family unit has done pretty well historically without the need for abusive laws or a watering down of the talent pool. And I'm sorry, but are you a doctor? Because I can think of two women I graduated high-school with off the top of my head who are.... Equality is necessary. This country is smart enough to come up with better solutions. In my own little circle of family and friends, people are already starting to work out solutions where a family member is home when the kids are. We don't need you or your ignorant beliefs to save our families.


My doctor in Saudi Arabia was a woman.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> My doctor in Saudi Arabia was a woman.


Women doctor's in SA are only allowed to treat women, you are not the only one who has spent time there.


----------



## wiscto

At least there's this guy.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arab...ive-entire-32-billion-fortune-charity-1508820


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Women doctor's in SA are only allowed to treat women, you are not the only one who has spent time there.


Nonsense. She was an Egyptian woman, and very bright. I think I had a little crush on her. I suspect that only the most exceptional of women become doctors in that part of the world. Last I heard she was back in Egypt.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Nonsense. She was an Egyptian woman, and very bright. I think I had a little crush on her. I suspect that only the most exceptional of women become doctors in that part of the world. Last I heard she was back in Egypt.


So she wasn't saudi?


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> So she wasn't saudi?


No. She was born & raised in Cairo.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> I understood everything you said. I understand them. They, believe that women cannot be free and must be controlled in order to protect civilization from immorality. I get it. I disagree. I think it's disgusting. I think it's irrational. And I think if their men were any better at controlling themselves than their women, they wouldn't have such a high rape rate. Oh but of course, in Saudi Arabia it's the woman's fault.
> 
> Just like you apparently believe that our problems should be put squarely on our women. I think that's a sad, sick joke.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> Because in every other way we are similar.... We have free education, democracies, women who don't have to conceal themselves, women who can be doctors and men who don't try to stop them for the sake of their own weakness and insecurity anymore, freedom of speech, common ancestors, mostly secular government, and royalty has been mostly removed from power and is now just a sideshow...one that oddly enough Americans love even more than Europeans. Even our religious people practice more or less the same religion, as is the case with Central and South America. Not to mention, many states do not have the death penalty.
> 
> On the other hand. Saudi-Arabia practices slave labor on a massive scale by fooling people from isolated/desperate regions of the world into believing they are just going overseas for a job opportunity, women must conceal themselves and those who speak against it are threatened with mutilation and death, children can be raped as long as its under the correct circumstances, their monarchy is in power, their monarchy is considered to be the worst perpetrators of human trafficking and sex slavery (including pedophilia) in the world, they do NOT believe in freedom of religion, and they aren't exactly fond of Christians, and they were the most well represented country on the 9/11 hijacker list.
> 
> Don't you worry. I understand my enemy....


Another post of the day award.


----------

