The religious war continues...

hangover

hangover

Member
So here we go with the crusades again. If the GOP wins next year, will they make the Muslim religion illegal? What's going to happen when they try to deport all the Muslims?

During WWII did they allow Germans to be German as long as they weren't Nazis?

Christians are already killing Muslims and burning Mosques in this country.

The U.S. killed a million innocent Muslim civilians during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.



My GOD is better than your god.
 

In nineteen thirty nine America refused to take in a boatload of Jewish children. Canada was no better. We should stop being high chair tyrants. No religion or political state has clean hands. We need to learn to do better.
 
Shalimar said:
In nineteen thirty nine America refused to take in a boatload of Jewish children. Canada was no better. We should stop being high chair tyrants. No religion or political state has clean hands. We need to learn to do better.
Click to expand...

Australia too. The poor Jews weren't even a security threat. It was pure anti-Semitism and this is one element of islamophobia today.
 

Warrigal said:
Australia too. The poor Jews weren't even a security threat. It was pure anti-Semitism and this is one element of islamophobia today.
Click to expand...

Adolph Hitler regarded the Jews as a security threat: to the economy, via the "Judenbank", and via the introduction of a strain of "unclean humanity" according to "Mein Kampf".

If anyone doubts the madness of the man, read excerpts from his book, above. Mind-numbing. imp
 
hangover said:
So here we go with the crusades again. If the GOP wins next year, will they make the Muslim religion illegal? What's going to happen when they try to deport all the Muslims?

During WWII did they allow Germans to be German as long as they weren't Nazis?

Christians are already killing Muslims and burning Mosques in this country.

The U.S. killed a million innocent Muslim civilians during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.



My GOD is better than your god.
Click to expand...

I do know that certainly not nearly everyone in Germany was a member of the Nazi party, but the officers were, and the SS, for sure. Probably most office holders were.
 
Dear Butterfly:
As a U.S. Army combat veteran, I have to challenge your statement that "The U.S. killed a million innocent Muslim civilians during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan." Please provide a reference so that I can verify the validity of that statistic. Hopefully it is not a "fabricated fact" derived by "anal extraction."

Hap
 
I read a couple of websites on the Iraqi body count and it varies but usually seems to be around 116,000+ in 8 years of war. The problem was that according to one site (Information Clearing House), neither America nor Britain kept any count of civilian casualties. As well no one went to the smaller hospitals in the country to find out how many were dying there from the fighting and many hospital records have been destroyed in the fighting. There is also the fact that many deaths weren't even reported as Islam decrees that the dead be buried right away or were lost under rubble, etc. So in all likelihood a true count of immediate deaths will never be known. It would also be necessary to consider the number of people who've died as a result of the change in lifestyle, access to food, medicines, etc. They might not show up in the 'killed in action' numbers but they should also be counted.

In Afghanistan, the 'official' number is 26,000 with another 29,000 injuries (many of which may have died later as a result of injuries?) And I don't think those numbers include any people who died because of starvation, exposure, etc., that were the direct result of bombing and fighting between outside forces and al Qaeda.

I watched a 'fifth estate' news program where they were discussing deaths as a result of Canadian operations in Iraq and it quickly became evident that the military makes a point of looking the other way. The military official they talked to assured the interviewer that the priority is no civilian casualties, but when the news organization did their own research, they found that no one from the military EVER came to investigate when there were casualties and in fact the military spokesperson said their investigation consisted only of re-looking at the available footage and photos that they initially based their attack on. The policy was "yup, no civilians walking around on the street in front of our potential target, so we're sure we didn't kill anyone that wasn't supposed to be killed". That must be comforting to the people who had to bury their loved ones don't you think?
 
On that same program, they had a young Iraqi guy who initially contacted the new organization (CBC) to report what was going on in his town (at great danger to his own life if ISIS discovered him) and a couple things stood out. Firstly he said that he was happy about 'somebody' coming to help them but that he also hated them because they were killing his family, his neighbours families......

The other thing that stood out was towards the end of his efforts to keep the outside world apprised of what was going on there, is that he said that he was considering joining ISIS simply to keep his family safe from ISIS! He said some of his friends had already done that. I guess if you are in 'the club', your family is less likely to be targeted than if you and they are not members. How many of those ISIS monsters are the same and only trying to keep their mom's and dads and little kids and wives safe? I hadn't even considered that but I can see how that would happen.
 
Hap said:
Dear Butterfly:
As a U.S. Army combat veteran, I have to challenge your statement that "The U.S. killed a million innocent Muslim civilians during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan." Please provide a reference so that I can verify the validity of that statistic. Hopefully it is not a "fabricated fact" derived by "anal extraction."

Hap
Click to expand...

The U.S. military hid the torture in Abu Grab. The numbers of "collateral" damage is hidden by the perpetrators of those wars too, like the Nazis hid the extermination of the Jews.
This link says only 500,000 civilians killed, so a half million is nothing. Right? But that's only the civilians in Iraq. It's not counting Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html


 
God, I feel like a prophet...The con candidates and the House of Representatives are already crying for the registration of all Muslims, and closure of all Mosques. The cons issue for the election will be "FEAR!", just like the Nazis did with the Jews.
 
hangover said:
God, I feel like a prophet...The con candidates and the House of Representatives are already crying for the registration of all Muslims, and closure of all Mosques. The cons issue for the election will be "FEAR!", just like the Nazis did with the Jews.
Click to expand...

They are exactly like the Nazis.
 
Ameriscot said:
They are exactly like the Nazis.
Click to expand...
Yep, uh huh...scary isn't it. I think they are more of a threat to this country than ISIS, because they're here and ISIS is a long way away. I can stay out of the big cities, but the cons are everywhere.
 
The candidates and the Congress are free to speak as they feel, just as you liberals are free to speak as you feel. Some where in that mix there might be some bit of truth. But not all of either side is truth.
 
Shalimar said:
Armies are in the business of eradicating threats real or perceived, not worrying much about collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. Its easy to lean back in our easy chair and condemn the acts of others. The things that happen on a battlefield are horrible in the extreme, yet perfectly understandable. Which makes them even more horrible..
 
hangover said:
God, I feel like a prophet...The con candidates and the House of Representatives are already crying for the registration of all Muslims, and closure of all Mosques. The cons issue for the election will be "FEAR!", just like the Nazis did with the Jews.
Click to expand...

I have not read or heard on the news about all the conservative candidates, and the House Of Representatives wanting the registration of all Muslims, and closure of all mosques, Hangover. Trump is the only candidate of the candidates that mentioned Muslims should be registered in a national data base. Could you please show a link that I can read about all the rest of the conservative candidates and the House of Representatives stating they will be having Muslim's register in a database, and they are going to close all mosques.
 
I can't really consider this a religious war--- it seems to be another radical extremist doomsday cult (with a religious spin) trying to go out with a very big bang, but of course much much more scary and dangerous. And the whole middle east thing lately seems to be about the world powers (Russia, France, US) building strategic bases for future. Not religious at all, but having that flavor.

I just read of a drug/pill that the Syrian fighters and jihadists are taking to fuel their killing abilities.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/wo...t+makes+syrian+combatants/11532328/story.html
 
Misty said:
I have not read or heard on the news about all the conservative candidates, and the House Of Representatives wanting the registration of all Muslims, and closure of all mosques, Hangover. Trump is the only candidate of the candidates that mentioned Muslims should be registered in a national data base. Could you please show a link that I can read about all the rest of the conservative candidates and the House of Representatives stating they will be having Muslim's register in a database, and they are going to close all mosques.
Click to expand...

Many cons spoke about it during the House vote to ban all Syrian immigration yesterday. And if the con candidates win next year, there will be nothing to stop them from declaring the Muslim religion a terrorist organization. If you don't think they will, good luck. The Germans really believed the Nazis were going to bring glory back to the homeland, like Trump promises.

In 2016, for the second straight presidential election, the Republican primary field will include at least one candidate with nakedly anti-Muslim views. I’m not talking about candidates who denounce “radical Islam.” I’m not talking about Newt Gingrich, who in 2011 absurdly claimed that “Sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States.” I’m not even talking about Bobby Jindal, who kept repeating the lie that Europe contains “no-go” zones where non-Muslims are not allowed, even after it was repudiated by Fox News.

[h=4]Related Story[/h]

Is Jeb Bush Buying the Nomination?
I’m talking about candidates who don’t cloak their prejudice at all. In 2012, the prime offender was Herman Cain. “I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro,” Cain said, after the residents of that Tennessee town tried to block the building of a mosque. Cain explained that while banning churches or synagogues constitutes religious discrimination, banning mosques does not. Because “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law,” Cain explained, “that’s not discriminating based upon religion.” When asked whether he would feel “comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?” Cain replied, “No, I will not,” because “there is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.”
There’s not much subtlety here. Had Cain said communities should be able to ban churches because Christians impose their sexual morality on others, or that he would not appoint a Jew to his cabinet because Jews are loyal to Israel, he’d have been hounded from the race. But because Cain made his comments about Muslims, he felt no real pressure to drop out from his own ideological side. To the contrary, he continued to rise in the polls after he made those comments, only leaving the race in the wake of an unrelated sex scandal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/anti-islam/385463/
 
The House on Tuesday admitted defeat after a month-long effort to defund President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, and passed a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that leaves Obama’s plan intact.
The vote came after dozens of House Republicans fought to the bitter end to reject the “clean” DHS bill, in an effort to oppose what they see as an unconstitutional action from Obama. The House passed the bill 257-167, and sending it to the White House for Obama’s signature into law.

In the end, 167 Republicans voted against the Senate’s version of the bill. But because the bill was supported by every Democrat, only 30 or so Republicans had to support it to ensure it’s passage, and 75 GOP members voted for it.
The vote marks the end of a bitter fight over Obama’s immigration action that saw Senate Democrats dictate the terms of the dispute throughout the entire process. The House was able to easily pass a bill defunding Obama’s immigration plan, but when it got to the Senate, Democrats refused to provide the six or so votes needed to advance the legislation.

After a few weeks, with pressure building on the GOP to fund DHS, Democrats were able to force the Senate to approve a DHS bill that didn’t include any immigration language at all. On top of that, Senate Democrats refused to negotiate with the House on the bill.


That forced House GOP leaders to concede that they could either force a partial DHS shutdown, or admit defeat.
In floor debate, Republicans on both sides of the issue blamed Senate Democrats for refusing to follow basic procedures and forcing the House’s hand. But GOP members split on just how hard the House should have fought back.
Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.) led the group of Republicans who opposed the clean DHS bill, even at the risk of a partial DHS shutdown, in order to make the point that the House shouldn’t be steamrolled by the White House and the Senate.


“Today we heard Mr. Netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative… organization in the world,” Massie said. “I would say it is, except for when the Senate decides that it’s not.”
“The fault lies in the U.S. Senate,” added Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.).
Several others agreed that the need to protect the constitutional role of the House was a larger issue than DHS funding. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) rejected the Democratic criticism that Republicans can’t “govern,” and said conservative GOP members are trying to follow the Constitution.
“If it was just about governing, then I think that the American people can just close shop and let the president just run everything. But we actually have a constitution that we have to adhere to,” he said.
“Despots all over the world, they govern. They keep the trains running on time. But we stand for something different,” he added.
Other Republicans, however, argued that there was no where else to go in the fight except a DHS shutdown that would bring Republicans more scorn and derision.


“The problem is, I don’t see a path to victory,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho).
Many other Republicans noted that a federal court has imposed an injunction on Obama’s plan, which has prevented key parts of Obama’s program from being implemented. Several have said the GOP should claim that as a win and move on by ensuring DHS is funded.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ight-passes-clean-dhs-bill-with-75-gop-votes/
 
hangover said:

Many cons spoke about it during the House vote to ban all Syrian immigration yesterday. And if the con candidates win next year, there will be nothing to stop them from declaring the Muslim religion a terrorist organization. If you don't think they will, good luck. The Germans really believed the Nazis were going to bring glory back to the homeland, like Trump promises.

In 2016, for the second straight presidential election, the Republican primary field will include at least one candidate with nakedly anti-Muslim views. I’m not talking about candidates who denounce “radical Islam.” I’m not talking about Newt Gingrich, who in 2011 absurdly claimed that “Sharia is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States.” I’m not even talking about Bobby Jindal, who kept repeating the lie that Europe contains “no-go” zones where non-Muslims are not allowed, even after it was repudiated by Fox News.

Related Story



Is Jeb Bush Buying the Nomination?
I’m talking about candidates who don’t cloak their prejudice at all. In 2012, the prime offender was Herman Cain. “I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro,” Cain said, after the residents of that Tennessee town tried to block the building of a mosque. Cain explained that while banning churches or synagogues constitutes religious discrimination, banning mosques does not. Because “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law,” Cain explained, “that’s not discriminating based upon religion.” When asked whether he would feel “comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?” Cain replied, “No, I will not,” because “there is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.”
There’s not much subtlety here. Had Cain said communities should be able to ban churches because Christians impose their sexual morality on others, or that he would not appoint a Jew to his cabinet because Jews are loyal to Israel, he’d have been hounded from the race. But because Cain made his comments about Muslims, he felt no real pressure to drop out from his own ideological side. To the contrary, he continued to rise in the polls after he made those comments, only leaving the race in the wake of an unrelated sex scandal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/anti-islam/385463/
Click to expand...

The bill, which passed, 289 to 137, with nearly 50 Democrats supporting it, would require that the director of the F.B.I., the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence confirm that each applicant from Syria and Iraq poses no threat. There was no mention in the bill to ban all Syrian immigration, hangover. Quite a few members here said there should be strong oversight of the Syrian refugees before being brought into the U.S. I saw no mention by any candidate to close all the mosques.

As far as talking about candidates and their views from 2010, 2011, 2012 etc, I was under the impression we were talking about the candidates running now.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top