Is this no different to what 'American' citizens did to the Irish and African Americans?
Yes. It is entirely different than anything that could be considered standard of American behavior.
This is simple 'American' hubris. We think everything we have is better than what anyone else may have. Including religion.
Americans are funny animals.
They are one of the only nations with a population that so gladly basks in guilt over any sense of national pride.
Americans, at that, are actually exceptionally humble by comparison to how most nations view themselves.
I do applaud you, though, for recognizing that Muslims are not American.
They are Islamic. The only nation they are permitted to be a member of.
I like how it's always gay64c. First of all the shooting wasn't needed and should have never happened, still doesn't change the fact that what they did is the same shit. Insulting the believes of people and calling it speech of freedom. Alright, i'm gonna rape your mom next time and then say it's acting of freedom. What a load of bullshit.
And I could send you a video proving that I'm your father.
There's a distinct difference between force and offense. When you insist that you would attempt to rape my deceased mother (Her urn is sealed - so I'm not quite sure how you're going to do that - but necessity is the mother of all innovation, I suppose) - you are implying the use of force against another person.
There exist comic books about all kinds of things - pictures of all kinds of heinous things. The worst that happens is someone shows me one of them and I make a note to ask what someone wishes to show me before taking them up on their offer.
While it is true that you are free to decide to make the attempt to rape anyone, anywhere, at any time - it is simply not true to compare that to a freedom of speech.
Neither of us, by the way, actually have such a right or freedom. The Constitution in America is a set of restrictions for the government. The government cannot establish laws that attempt to regulate speech. It does not protect people from civil suits regarding false or damaging speech. Nor does it mean that people can be excused of crimes like fraud based upon "free speech."
You copy your shitty translated crap from google and insult people on here and force your trash to others.
Google is not a source, it is a search engine.
I actually link to most of where I pull my translations from - which often come straight from Quran.com using the Sahih International translation that is generally regarded as one of the most accurate translations of meanings by Muslims.
You're like the morons that call us germans nazi, while most of us aren't and can't leave what happened in the past.
Actually, I consider 'you Germans' to be undeserving to share my blood.
Germany, the country to which I trace the most direct ancestry, has become a stagnant pool of self-victimizing acquiescence. Gone is the blood that conquered the capital of Rome. Gone is the blood that crushed the Islamic horde. And gone is the blood that wrought steel from the dark age.
You're pathetic and weak, choosing to blame the world for your lack of success.
I can at least respect the Nazis for having vision.
What's left of Germany?
A blind husk.
Don't get me wrong - the Nazis were wrong. But at least they had some pep to their step and hunger in their eyes.
America has more German spirit than Germany had for a very, very long time.
We should make some fun of you muricans and let's see how much butthurt ***s are crying and your government starting war to steal oil and kill innocent people is something we can talk about as well.
Go right ahead, do your worst.
At the end of the day, even if I agree that America's foreign policy has been on the completely wrong track and wrong...
We still had the balls to do something.
Let me know how that letter to Putin works out for you guys.
I don't understand. :erm:
Islamic terror networks have millions of members in America and are backed by the New Black Panthers.
No single event is going to draw company-sized action from those militants. It's going to be small two and three man elements/details - not even full squads.
It's completely unnecessary for all of the muslims who are willing and planning to attack events such as this to -all- do so at one time.
Of course, if you assume this is because these people were "offended" - then it only makes sense you would assume that these two were just "one of the minority."
Christians from the 21th century are far from the Christians in the past.
Do tell.
I do. I'm Arabic, and I was taught 17 years of Islam at the country Islam was established. Clearly enough to make my interpretation more legit than someone who is not Arabic and was never taught about Islam.
Taught and study are two very, very different things.
I did when we had the PM discussion about it.
Copy and paste it here. I never opened it.
I can't since he died, but I could enlighten you. What did he say?
You must be registered for see links
Quite a bit.
What Hadith are you referring to?
Hmm... I'm curious... Islam suggests that things such as Health Insurance are akin to gambling (I don't entirely disagree with the logic) and thus forbids it. Would it be forbidden to use a random method of selecting a hadith? Such as throwing some dice or spinning a wheel?
I could see arguments for both.
Either way - it is difficult to find a scenario where Muhammad is being conducive to the values of western civilization. In many of his best moments, he can be thought of as a sly business man who is revered as a holy man by the groups of thugs he affiliated with. He isn't necessarily the one getting his hands dirty - but it's not entirely clear if he is simply 'going along' with the brutality of the group he is in, fully endorsing it, or afraid to speak out against it.
Anyway - this has some fun ones:
You must be registered for see links
"Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" "
I'll have to keep this Hadith in mind if I ever get captured by Muslims.
Getting set on fire like that pilot would really, really suck.
Of course, so would being stoned. At least being stoned, thrashing about would feel somewhat more productive.
"Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash`ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'O Abu Musa (O `Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or `Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu`adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu`adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu`adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu`adh to sit down but Mu`adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" "
Freedom of Religion means that Islam is allowed to practice its laws. Which include executing people who turn from Islam.
"Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.""
I am not a fool, young one.
There is a reason why Muslims do not engage in scriptural debate with non-muslims.
Many would not dare ascribe false statements to the prophet of islam. This is why any direct citations of the Qu'ran are all said to require 'context' that only muslims can properly understand (despite a lack of willingness to actually discuss that context). You will rarely get a public explanation of that context to avoid creating Al-Fitnah and fooling other Muslims into believing what has been told to fool a Kufar.
Now, the argument could be made:
"Aim, you are basically arguing in support of ISIS and these 'radicals' - what you are saying is supporting them!"
In the short term, yes. If you decide to re-evaluate your faith based upon what I dredge up from the bowels of islamic texts to provide as an argument and join the 'radicals' - then so be it.
In the long term, however, the propagation of Islam is dependent upon an ignorance of the content of its texts and the attitudes of its prophet. The "ideal man" in Islam is one who stands as nearly the antithesis of what most Western civilizations embrace as ethical.
"Your wives are your tilleth, approach them as you will." "A woman's testimony is half that of a man, such is her deficiency." Dealing with a disobedient wife involves 'warning' then 'forsaking in bed' and finally 'striking.' Even Aisha complained of this.
Muhammad had people executed for refusing to submit to a religion and executed people for leaving his religion. This is not at all the kind of 'ideal' behavior embraced by western society.
This is an awesome one:
You must be registered for see links
"I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent." "
That's -totally- how the West views consent to marriage.
You must be registered for see links
"A man came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope." "
"Um Haram said, "Once the Prophet (ﷺ) slept in my house near to me and got up smiling. I said, 'What makes you smile?' He replied, 'Some of my followers who (i.e. in a dream) were presented to me sailing on this green sea like kings on thrones.' I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Invoke Allah to make me one of them." So the Prophet (ﷺ) invoked Allah for her and went to sleep again. He did the same (i.e. got up and told his dream) and Um Haran repeated her question and he gave the same reply. She said, "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." He said, "You are among the first batch." Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband 'Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Mu awiya. When the expedition came to an end and they were returning to Sham, a riding animal was presented to her to ride, but the animal let her fall and thus she died."
These were conquests.
The concept of Jihad as Muhammad envisioned it was military conquest in the name of Islam - to subjugate the adjacent lands into an ever-expanding state of Islam.
"A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause.""
"That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?' He replied in the negative." "
This is a popular one:
"Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O `Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'""
Which is happening due to the false propaganda, teachings of Islamic organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, and Isis. All which preach their propaganda and many Muslims are following it, as seen in few countries in the Middle East and Europe. But if you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, it began by American foreign policy in the Middle East. Their policies being implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the money and arm support to Israel's policies in Palestine, had caused these Islamic organizations to be formed, namely Al-Qaeda and Taliban.
Al-Qaeda actually traces its origins back before America began.
Al-Qaeda - The Foundation - believes that it needs to act to build up the influence of Islam throughout the world to allow for a time where a Caliphate can be declared. Many in AQ believe this time is long off. Al-Qaeda saw a lot of activity during World War 2 and their collaboration with Hitler.
Western powers have always been willing to treat organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood as business partners. Much like how the French established roots with the American Revolution - or Americans attempted to establish relations with the upcoming powers in the French Revolution. The idea has always been to try and have a "we'll scratch your back and you scratch ours." Funding these groups or providing them with support has been seen as a sort of foreign policy investment.
Powers in the West rushed to gain the favor of Saddam when he gained power in Iraq just as Europe attempted to gain favor with Hitler when he first took power in Germany. In retrospect - he was far easier to deal with than anything that came out of democracy from there.
It is indeed America's fault and they are still doing it. Several reports show U.S is supporting Isis like it did to Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The weapons Isis carry are American-made weapons, and their oil export profit is bought by America.
Their oil export is bought by local distributors who then bulk sale to major nations.
You will also find that what you have said is not news to me in the slightest. You'll find that I've explained in great detail what has happened to the U.S. and why our administrations have been making completely insane foreign policy decisions.
You must be registered for see links
" In the initial Nazi invasion of Russia hundreds of thousands of Soviet Muslim soldiers were captured. These Muslim Soviet POWs were initially maltreated. A German officer and Uzbek ex-pat living in Germany, Veli Kayum, entered the camps and enlisted their aid in forming fighting military units to combat their former Soviet masters. Kayum ultimately becomes head of a Turkestan National Liberation Council. Another Uzbek and von Mende protégé, Baymirza Hayit, became liaison to the German High Command. Several hundred thousand former Soviet Muslim POWs joined this effort and formed Waffen SS units akin to those in the Balkans, like the Bosnian Handshar or Dagger Division. One such Caucasian unit had regular German uniforms with a distinctive patch (Biz Alla Bilen – “God With Us”). These Soviet Muslim cadres in German units were used in the unsuccessful relief of Stalingrad and as special ops units in Operation Zeppelin. That operation involved the parachuting of Soviet Muslims into Russian territory equipped with maps and radios as pathfinders and possible saboteurs of petroleum complexes in Grozny and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus. Other former Soviet Muslim POWs become functionaries at the Ostministerium in Berlin and were organized into national liberation desks engaged in propaganda broadcasts –a model for post WWII CIA-funded efforts at Radio Liberty. One of those who figures in post-WWII activities with the CIA funded Radio Liberty is Tatar, Garip Sultan, who held the Tatar liberation desk at the Nazi Ostministerium. Sultan was promoted to military governor of the Tartar provisional government by the Nazis. One of von Mende’s initiatives bore significant results when over 20,000 Tatars joined Waffen SS auxiliaries after the Nazis took the Crimea. Von Mende reached out to Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini and asked him to consider taking the post of Mufti for the conquered Crimea. Von Mende wrote Husseini:
“The Islamic world is a whole . . . German action towards Moslems in the east must be such as not to prejudice Germany’s standing among all Islamic Peoples.”
Hitler, when queried about the Waffen SS formation of these Soviet POW Muslims, considered them as "safe." As we know from the biography of his munitions chief Albert Speer, Hitler was an admirer of Islam and Jihadism. However the rollback by Soviet forces in 1944 put a stop to that effort. "
...
" Johnson notes that at one point AMCOMLIB CIA officers Eric Kuniholm and Robert Dreher, the latter based in Munich, provided funding for Dr. Said Ramadan. Ramadan with the connivance of Haj Amin Al Husseini spread the political Islamic doctrine of the MB via the World Muslim League. The League was co-founded by the Grand Mufti, al Husseini, and Ramadan. The core of the MB doctrine was the restoration of the Caliphate which had ended with establishment of modern Turkey in 1924. The Caliph would enforce strict Islamic Law in the ummah - the community of believers. Ramadan married one of daughters of Egyptian MB founder Hassan al-Banna, who was assassinated in 1949 by Egyptian authorities under King Farouk. Gamal al-Banna, brother of the MB founder, thought Ramadan could “have been the foreign Minister of the MB. He was an eloquent orator and spoke English. He had many contacts overseas.” Ramadan and the Grand Mufti held a meeting in Karachi during the World Muslim Congress in 1951. Ramadan was then elected as a secretary of the Congress. Ramadan was also with the Grand Mufti in the Jerusalem-based Islamic General Congress. Among his colleagues in the MB was Sayyid Qutb, the MB’s principal modern theorist and author of the tract Milestones. Qutb propounded the view that those who disagreed with these Islamic principals were apostates and therefore subject to a death.
Despite viewing the West as degenerate, Said Ramadan viewed Soviet Communism as the foremost enemy of Islam. In this he was following the line laid done by the Grand Mufti. As early as 1946, the US War Department observed that the Mufti had informed his followers that Communism violated Koranic doctrine. That made him an influential Muslim anti-Communist. However, the Mufti was viewed as tainted goods by the CIA given his Nazi-past and sojourn in Berlin as Hitler’s house guest during WWII. Ramadan, on the other hand, had so such baggage. The stage was set for an encounter with President Eisenhower at a 1953 Princeton University Islamic Colloquium. Johnson noted:
Abbott Washburn deputy director of the US Information Agency . . . recalled the high priority that Eisenhower gave to religion in his personal life and in geopolitical strategy.
Washburn sent a note to Eisenhower’s psychological warfare whiz, C.D. Jackson. That [the Princeton Islamic Colloquium] might achieve a hoped for result that the Muslims will be impressed with the moral and spiritual strength of America. These individuals can exert a profound and far-reaching impact upon Muslim thinking. Their long-term influence may well outweigh that of the political leaders of their countries."
Thus, the fledgling of what would become the CIA began flirting with the Islamic world and staffing many sections of our government with advisers from the Muslim Brotherhood.
You must be registered for see links
"“I am convinced that this administration intends Iran to become the nuclear power hegemon of the entire Persian Gulf region – and that includes especially the oil-rich areas. This includes the east coast of Saudi Arabia as well as southern Iraq and Iran itself.”
Lopez said the key to understand the president’s behavior is in a book written by a fellow former-CIA operative, “The Devil We Know,” by Robert Baer.
“I now believe this book is the blueprint for the Obama administration’s Middle East plan,” she explained.
She strongly disagrees with the book’s premise that the U.S. should empower and partner with Iran, and says it is mistaken on a number of points, but it is still important because the recommendations it made to the then-incoming administration in 2009 seem to have been adopted by Obama.
Lopez said the author knows Saudi Arabia very well and absolutely hates the Saudis. His premise was the Obama administration ought to assist Iran to become the dominant power of the Persian Gulf, and, essentially, the entire Middle East.
“I am not making this up. You can’t make this up to save your life,” she marveled.
Lopez said the book advises America to seek a truce with Iran, deal with it as an equal and reach settlements on one issue at a time, “until Iran is ready for détente and maybe more.”
And, she believes the Obama administration is, in fact, following a plan to let Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East, with the intention of turning the state that sponsors more terrorism than any other, into a security partner of the U.S.
...
“Its not in the United States’ best interests, but it is one way of getting us out of Muslim lands, which is what this administration wants done. They are trying to be even-handed between the Shiites and the Sunni, especially with the Muslim Brotherhood clamoring in their ear,” she said. “So, what happens? Arab Spring. North Africa goes to the Sunnis: al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. They should be happy with that: They get Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. The Persian Gulf region goes to Iran.”
And Iran is permitted to be a nuclear power.
“I think it already is a nuclear power,” Lopez said. “I think they have functioning warheads. They obviously have functioning missiles, including ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). The Pentagon has published openly its estimate by next year, 2015, Iranian ICBMs will be capable of reaching the continental U.S. from Iran. This is open, unclassified, open-source publication.”
WND noted that made sense out of remarks Obama recently made that we were witnessing “a transition from an old order to a new order” in the Mideast, along with “the terrible violence that occurs as a result,” which seemed to indicate he believed the bloodshed was akin to birth pains.
Lopez said Americans have no clue what he is talking about, which is dividing the Middle East between two sets of jihadis, Sunni and Shiite. "
That interview was back in 2014.
What was just a big hub-ub in the news? The "Iranian deal" where Iran, basically, is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
"But why, WND asked, would Obama have threatened to bomb Assad last summer for his alleged use of chemical weapons, if he wanted to see Iran’s influence spread?
That brought her to what she described as the biggest problem in the big picture, the influence of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood over the U.S. government. "
Obama, contrary to what some assert, is not a Muslim. He is, however, sympathetic to Muslims (being raised one). He believes that the cause of the problems in the Middle East is the U.S. and that it is necessary for the U.S. to leave the Middle East.
I don't disagree that it is best for the U.S. to leave the Middle East - but mostly, as Lopez observed, herself - because we have proven that our intelligence community is completely incapable of operating in that theater. Most of our actions will result in blunders over there - regardless of what we attempt to do, benevolent, malevolent, or otherwise.
I do not, however, share Obama's assessment that the Middle East will improve as a result of our leaving.
Although that comes from a somewhat subjective difference in cultural values. The future of the Middle East without U.S. influence is ISIS. Iran could put up a pretty good fight, but there are already ticklers on the wire about the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to form peaceful relations with the Shiite groups present in Iran.
At first, that might sound like a good thing - but any allegiance between the two will be tricky as many of the modern conveniences and even governing concepts adopted by the Shiites are haram by Sunni standard. The Muslim Brotherhood is likely to seek to empower those groups that are more appropriate within Sunni interpretations of Islam and that is going to lead to a crack-down throughout Iran that may or may not topple the current government topography.
