Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please find me the one that has passages within it that exclude the outright murder of the infidels.
Screw the internet. Let them stand up on the tube, newspapers, books, radio, the malls, etc. and proclaim to the world loudly they denounce what has been done in their faith. It's too small a voice for now - the time when it's needed the most. They dare not stand up against the extremists. They are near dhimmis themselves.
That doesn't diminish his words one bit.
Just as the ages haven't diminished their holy koran's words.
The bible and all it's iterations, faiths, followings have evolved and changed. We are not required to follow the distasteful and objectionable parts of it. We can choose not to obey the things we disagree with.
However, the islamic faith requires it's faithful to follow the most current iterations of it's passages to the letter. And those include the murderous fanatical writings they are putting into practice now.
Why the moderates don't follow it is their issue. But I'll be vigilant of them.
To not be vigilant is folly. If you think that's irrational, then so be it. I do not feel it is.
At least you are admitting the Bible has distasteful and objectionable parts. You do know there are Christians that do say we have to obey it, distasteful and objectionable parts included. I guess they are like some Muslims, who say they have to obey distasteful, objectionable parts of the Koran, even though many Muslims choose not to obey the things they disagree with.
Perhaps the angry and fear ridden who condemn the Islamic religion and would war against them have overlooked the fact that Al Qaida and the Talaban have their roots in Wahabism, a small radical sect of Islam generally refuted by mainstream muslims.
All fours main schools, or branches, of Sunni Islam (Hanafi Maliki Shafi'i and Hanbali ) believe in jihad and violence to spread the faith. They all believe that Muslims must strive in theways of jihad until everyone in the world acknowledges Allah as god and Mohammad as his messenger. You don't need wahabi extremmism to have Islamic extremism and, even though wahabists may be small in number they are backed by Saudi oil money and their influence spreads fare in excess oftheir numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
How about rogerbacon making a substantive comment instead of a snarky one?
I make substantive comments all the time. The snarky ones are just a bonus How about this: If one side is fighting a war against another side and that side is not fighting back then the first side can only gain ground, even if slowly, because the other side is not fighting to retake ground it has lost. This can by physiclal ground, or moral positions in the arean of public debate. Jihadists advance not only through violence but by winning public debate by silencing their critics. We choose to fight back by pointing out legitimate concerns about their actions and the beliefes that they use to justify their actions. Islam-apoligists sabotage our efforsts in the name of 'tollerance' and, in doing so, they are also aiding the jihad.
All fours main schools, or branches, of Sunni Islam (Hanafi Maliki Shafi'i and Hanbali ) believe in jihad and violence to spread the faith. They all believe that Muslims must strive in theways of jihad until everyone in the world acknowledges Allah as god and Mohammad as his messenger. You don't need wahabi extremmism to have Islamic extremism and, even though wahabists may be small in number they are backed by Saudi oil money and their influence spreads fare in excess oftheir numbers.
I make substantive comments all the time. The snarky ones are just a bonus How about this: If one side is fighting a war against another side and that side is not fighting back then the first side can only gain ground, even if slowly, because the other side is not fighting to retake ground it has lost. This can by physiclal ground, or moral positions in the arean of public debate. Jihadists advance not only through violence but by winning public debate by silencing their critics. We choose to fight back by pointing out legitimate concerns about their actions and the beliefes that they use to justify their actions. Islam-apoligists sabotage our efforsts in the name of 'tollerance' and, in doing so, they are also aiding the jihad.
How about this substantive comeback. I am fighting. To hold the moral position. The moral position is to uphold our principles of tolerance and freedom. You are aiding the enemy, the jihadists, who are arguing that the principles Americans espouse mean nothing, that we don't stand by our principles. If you don't hold fast to the principles, you are yielding ground to the jihadists. YOU are the one LOSING the war. Not I.
How about this substantive comeback. I am fighting. To hold the moral position. The moral position is to uphold our principles of tolerance and freedom. You are aiding the enemy, the jihadists, who are arguing that the principles Americans espouse mean nothing, that we don't stand by our principles. If you don't hold fast to the principles, you are yielding ground to the jihadists. YOU are the one LOSING the war. Not I.
The British held to their priniciples of honorable warfare by wearing bright uniforms and standing in nice straight lines during the revolution. We hid behind trees, sniped at officers (really bad show old chap), and ran away. Priniciples are fine but ultimately meaningless if the othersie sees them as aweakness and not something to be respected. They are worth than meaningless if they end up causing your civilization to fade in to history. The enemy exploits our moral position and makes advances. We need to make the distinction that we will hold to those moral standards against enemies who also hold to them. Against the others we will treat them like the animals they are. This is nothing new. Two hundred years ago gentlement foought duels of honor only against others of their class. A non-gentleman who insults you was beaten or whipped, not dueled.
Big deal... I remember when America had REAL enemies
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Over a month ago I talked and talked about the Muslim Brotherhood being the group that takes control of about everything Muslim in the US. They have officially declared war on the whole West and especially the US. Now it is time for us to deal with CAIR and other Muslim groups as if they were really at war with us.
The British held to their priniciples of honorable warfare by wearing bright uniforms and standing in nice straight lines during the revolution. We hid behind trees, sniped at officers (really bad show old chap), and ran away. Priniciples are fine but ultimately meaningless if the othersie sees them as aweakness and not something to be respected. They are worth than meaningless if they end up causing your civilization to fade in to history. The enemy exploits our moral position and makes advances. We need to make the distinction that we will hold to those moral standards against enemies who also hold to them. Against the others we will treat them like the animals they are. This is nothing new. Two hundred years ago gentlement foought duels of honor only against others of their class. A non-gentleman who insults you was beaten or whipped, not dueled.
I think the idea that we will hold to moral standards only under certain conditions is an immoral position. It has no integrity. And I don't mean integrity in the sense of honesty, but I mean integrity in the sense of wholeness. If you engage in a war with a religion, which is what you are advocating, then your morality is your shield. A fragmentary morality that you use only occasionally, like a handkerchief to wipe your nose, will leave you defenseless. I'm not at war with a religion, but I recognize that religion plays a role in this conflict. I want my moral shield to be as strong as possible. That means holding to those moral standards whether the enemy does or not. Because I believe in those principles. And part of the enemy's propaganda is that I don't. I have the moral advantage. And I'm not willing to give it up. That would be a concession to the enemy.
Over a month ago I talked and talked about the Muslim Brotherhood being the group that takes control of about everything Muslim in the US. They have officially declared war on the whole West and especially the US. Now it is time for us to deal with CAIR and other Muslim groups as if they were really at war with us.
It is not a speech, it is a book, which he wrote in his 20s, while fighting in a war against a muslim country in Africa.
Is it Churchill's words or not? Somehow it seems to me that if he said it it is all his.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about this: If one side is fighting a war against another side and that side is not fighting back then the first side can only gain ground, even if slowly, because the other side is not fighting to retake ground it has lost. This can by physiclal ground, or moral positions in the arean of public debate. Jihadists advance not only through violence but by winning public debate by silencing their critics. We choose to fight back by pointing out legitimate concerns about their actions and the beliefes that they use to justify their actions. Islam-apoligists sabotage our efforsts in the name of 'tollerance' and, in doing so, they are also aiding the jihad.
Big deal... I remember when America had REAL enemies
