Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/28/2014, 4:35 pm

Oddly enough, no one seemed to be scared to be around Bill Maher while he was busy bashing Catholics and other Christians. Yet a cross-eyed glance at Islam from Mr. Maher seems to be enough to strike terror into the hearts of even the bravest liberal wuss (pardon the redundancy).
What has changed, other than the particular religion under fire?



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391316/uc-berkeley-petition-having-bill-maher-campus-not-safe-katherine-timpf


OCTOBER 28, 2014 1:17 PM

UC-Berkeley Petition: Having Bill Maher on Campus Is Not Safe

Students opposed to Maher's recent comments on Islam.

By Katherine Timpf

Earlier this month, the University of California, Berkeley announced that Bill Maher would be its fall graduation speaker — but thousands have signed a petition to protest because they think his presence campus would make students unsafe.
Their concerns come from recent comments he made about Islam, such as “The Muslim world has too much in common with ISIS,” and “Talk to women who’ve ever dated an Arab man. The results are not good.”
“Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC-Berkeley students and administration stand for,” states the petition, written by student government senator Khwaja Ahmed.  
“We cannot invite an individual who himself perpetuates a dangerous learning environment,” it continues.
Other students echoed Ahmed’s concerns about student safety if Maher were brought to campus:
“As the Student Regent for the University of California, I cannot stand for any action that makes our students feel unsafe,” Sadia Saifuddin commented on the petition.
At the time of publication, the petition had 2,447 signatures.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/29/2014, 4:22 pm

Who do you agree with jack, Bill Maher, Khwaja Ahmed, or Ben Affleck?


Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/29/2014, 4:43 pm

edge540 wrote:
Who do you agree with jack, Bill Maher, Khwaja Ahmed, or Ben Affleck?





Can't tell you - I'm having issues with my feed from outside audio sources. Is there any text available for what they said?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/29/2014, 4:56 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
Who do you agree with jack, Bill Maher, Khwaja Ahmed, or Ben Affleck?





Can't tell you - I'm having issues with my feed from outside audio sources. Is there any text available for what they said?

So far this is about the most unbiased thing I can find:

Bill Maher vs. Ben Affleck On Islam: "Mafia That Will F**king Kill You If You Say The Wrong Thing"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/03/bill_maher_vs_ben_affleck_on_islam_mafia_that_will_fucking_kill_you_if_you_say_the_wrong_thing.html
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/29/2014, 8:40 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
Who do you agree with jack, Bill Maher, Khwaja Ahmed, or Ben Affleck?





Can't tell you - I'm having issues with my feed from outside audio sources. Is there any text available for what they said?

So far this is about the most unbiased thing I can find:

Bill Maher vs. Ben Affleck On Islam: "Mafia That Will F**king Kill You If You Say The Wrong Thing"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/03/bill_maher_vs_ben_affleck_on_islam_mafia_that_will_fucking_kill_you_if_you_say_the_wrong_thing.html



Thanks.
I can't say with any honesty who I agree with based on that, though. They're throwing out statistics that I have no way of easily verifying or refuting. However, Affleck certainly doesn't get any points for credibility or deep research by charging Bundy with being a gay cannibal.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/29/2014, 9:07 pm

Another so-called religion of peace...
White Christian Extremist Threatens "Sh*tstorm" if High School World History Class Mentions Islam
Quote :

Many and many a year ago, in my inaugural semester of that baneful rite of passage we more commonly refer to as "high school," I attended La Plata High, the local public system of teenage indoctrination in the tiny, 8,700-person eponymous town in Southern Maryland.

The only time in recent years La Plata (I regret to inform any curious readers that, no, in spite of the name, this is not El Dorado's sterling Mason–Dixon sister) has been featured in the national media was for an April 2002 F4 tornado that ravaged the town, destroyed many residents' homes, and killed four people.

Well, this small town, the community in which I spent (some might say wasted, perhaps correctly) five formative years of my youth, has now re-entered the spotlight, this time for even more dismal reasons: white terrorism.

Raw Story picked up a story from small, local newspaper The Gazette titled "Parent banned from La Plata HS after Islam homework dispute."

The article explains that a racist, anti-Muslim bigot (and former Marine) "threatened to disrupt the school environment" (read: engage in terrorism) if the school even acknowledged the existence of Islam in world history class.

You know, the second-largest religion, with 1.6 billion adherents; you know, the one that inspired civilizations that flourished for 1,000 years, creating modern science and mathematics, while the Christian West was in its "Dark Ages." If you mention the existence of that religion in your world history class, this white Christian terrorist is threatening a "sh*tstorm."

The extremist veteran (or is it "veteran extremist"?), Kevin Wood, went on record:

Quote :
I told [my daughter] straight up ‘you could take that Muslim-loving piece of paper and shove it up your white [expletive].

If [students] can’t practice Christianity in school, they should not be allowed to practice Islam in school.

By "practice Islam," Wood means "acknowledge the existence of Islam in a world history class." But, hey, I guess details are only for Islamist extremists, right? ("The Devil is in the detail" begins to make so much more sense when one takes into consideration the Weltanschauung of white Christian extremists.)

Wood claimed mentioning the existence of Islam in world history class violated his daughter's "constitutional rights"—presumably referring to her "constitutional right" to ignorance, as guaranteed in article [redacted] of the Constitution of the United States. (Fortunately for bigots like Wood, after my—admittedly rather cursory—review of the US Constitution, it appears as though acknowledgement of the existence of "the Other" is not enshrined in this most holy of unholy documents.)

If his daughter's world history teacher committed the most grievous of sins and uttered the name of one of world history's most influential religions (I'm now afraid of saying, of even writing, it myself), Wood declared he would "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen."

‪#‎murica‬ #WhiteTerrorism

Addendum: I might herein also add that the history teacher O’Malley-Simpson's quoted insistence that, "In the Middle East, Islam is the only religion" is so flagrantly incorrect I could hardly believe a history teacher uttered such an absurd statement. For one, Judaism and Christianity were born in the Middle East, and both are certainly still practiced there—not to mention Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, etc. The Middle East is an incredibly rich and diverse region of the world, culturally and religiously; it is not the ethnoreligious monolith Western racists and Orientalists want us to conceive of it as (it's much easier to dehumanize, bomb, and rob the natural resources of peoples you have collapsed into an unvariegated blob).
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 5:49 am

Artie60438 wrote:
Another so-called religion of peace...
White Christian Extremist Threatens "Sh*tstorm" if High School World History Class Mentions Islam
Quote :

Many and many a year ago, in my inaugural semester of that baneful rite of passage we more commonly refer to as "high school," I attended La Plata High, the local public system of teenage indoctrination in the tiny, 8,700-person eponymous town in Southern Maryland.

The only time in recent years La Plata (I regret to inform any curious readers that, no, in spite of the name, this is not El Dorado's sterling Mason–Dixon sister) has been featured in the national media was for an April 2002 F4 tornado that ravaged the town, destroyed many residents' homes, and killed four people.

Well, this small town, the community in which I spent (some might say wasted, perhaps correctly) five formative years of my youth, has now re-entered the spotlight, this time for even more dismal reasons: white terrorism.

Raw Story picked up a story from small, local newspaper The Gazette titled "Parent banned from La Plata HS after Islam homework dispute."

The article explains that a racist, anti-Muslim bigot (and former Marine) "threatened to disrupt the school environment" (read: engage in terrorism) if the school even acknowledged the existence of Islam in world history class.

You know, the second-largest religion, with 1.6 billion adherents; you know, the one that inspired civilizations that flourished for 1,000 years, creating modern science and mathematics, while the Christian West was in its "Dark Ages." If you mention the existence of that religion in your world history class, this white Christian terrorist is threatening a "sh*tstorm."

The extremist veteran (or is it "veteran extremist"?), Kevin Wood, went on record:

 
Quote :
I told [my daughter] straight up ‘you could take that Muslim-loving piece of paper and shove it up your white [expletive].

   If [students] can’t practice Christianity in school, they should not be allowed to practice Islam in school.

By "practice Islam," Wood means "acknowledge the existence of Islam in a world history class." But, hey, I guess details are only for Islamist extremists, right? ("The Devil is in the detail" begins to make so much more sense when one takes into consideration the Weltanschauung of white Christian extremists.)

Wood claimed mentioning the existence of Islam in world history class violated his daughter's "constitutional rights"—presumably referring to her "constitutional right" to ignorance, as guaranteed in article [redacted] of the Constitution of the United States. (Fortunately for bigots like Wood, after my—admittedly rather cursory—review of the US Constitution, it appears as though acknowledgement of the existence of "the Other" is not enshrined in this most holy of unholy documents.)

If his daughter's world history teacher committed the most grievous of sins and uttered the name of one of world history's most influential religions (I'm now afraid of saying, of even writing, it myself), Wood declared he would "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen."

‪#‎murica‬ #WhiteTerrorism

Addendum: I might herein also add that the history teacher O’Malley-Simpson's quoted insistence that, "In the Middle East, Islam is the only religion" is so flagrantly incorrect I could hardly believe a history teacher uttered such an absurd statement. For one, Judaism and Christianity were born in the Middle East, and both are certainly still practiced there—not to mention Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, etc. The Middle East is an incredibly rich and diverse region of the world, culturally and religiously; it is not the ethnoreligious monolith Western racists and Orientalists want us to conceive of it as (it's much easier to dehumanize, bomb, and rob the natural resources of peoples you have collapsed into an unvariegated blob).



This “shitstorm” of which you speak – what does it entail?
Flying jets into skyscrapers?
Random beheadings?
Strapping bombs onto women and children?



"threatened to disrupt the school environment" (read: engage in terrorism)


Terrorism? Doesn’t really look like it.
Speaking loudly at a PTA meeting?
Maybe.
If speaking out against religion being taught in schools equates to a terrorist act, then we should perhaps be keeping a closer eye on the ACLU.
Whaddaya think?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 6:55 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Another so-called religion of peace...
White Christian Extremist Threatens "Sh*tstorm" if High School World History Class Mentions Islam
Quote :

Many and many a year ago, in my inaugural semester of that baneful rite of passage we more commonly refer to as "high school," I attended La Plata High, the local public system of teenage indoctrination in the tiny, 8,700-person eponymous town in Southern Maryland.

The only time in recent years La Plata (I regret to inform any curious readers that, no, in spite of the name, this is not El Dorado's sterling Mason–Dixon sister) has been featured in the national media was for an April 2002 F4 tornado that ravaged the town, destroyed many residents' homes, and killed four people.

Well, this small town, the community in which I spent (some might say wasted, perhaps correctly) five formative years of my youth, has now re-entered the spotlight, this time for even more dismal reasons: white terrorism.

Raw Story picked up a story from small, local newspaper The Gazette titled "Parent banned from La Plata HS after Islam homework dispute."

The article explains that a racist, anti-Muslim bigot (and former Marine) "threatened to disrupt the school environment" (read: engage in terrorism) if the school even acknowledged the existence of Islam in world history class.

You know, the second-largest religion, with 1.6 billion adherents; you know, the one that inspired civilizations that flourished for 1,000 years, creating modern science and mathematics, while the Christian West was in its "Dark Ages." If you mention the existence of that religion in your world history class, this white Christian terrorist is threatening a "sh*tstorm."

The extremist veteran (or is it "veteran extremist"?), Kevin Wood, went on record:

 
Quote :
I told [my daughter] straight up ‘you could take that Muslim-loving piece of paper and shove it up your white [expletive].

   If [students] can’t practice Christianity in school, they should not be allowed to practice Islam in school.

By "practice Islam," Wood means "acknowledge the existence of Islam in a world history class." But, hey, I guess details are only for Islamist extremists, right? ("The Devil is in the detail" begins to make so much more sense when one takes into consideration the Weltanschauung of white Christian extremists.)

Wood claimed mentioning the existence of Islam in world history class violated his daughter's "constitutional rights"—presumably referring to her "constitutional right" to ignorance, as guaranteed in article [redacted] of the Constitution of the United States. (Fortunately for bigots like Wood, after my—admittedly rather cursory—review of the US Constitution, it appears as though acknowledgement of the existence of "the Other" is not enshrined in this most holy of unholy documents.)

If his daughter's world history teacher committed the most grievous of sins and uttered the name of one of world history's most influential religions (I'm now afraid of saying, of even writing, it myself), Wood declared he would "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen."

‪#‎murica‬ #WhiteTerrorism

Addendum: I might herein also add that the history teacher O’Malley-Simpson's quoted insistence that, "In the Middle East, Islam is the only religion" is so flagrantly incorrect I could hardly believe a history teacher uttered such an absurd statement. For one, Judaism and Christianity were born in the Middle East, and both are certainly still practiced there—not to mention Zoroastrianism, Yazidism, etc. The Middle East is an incredibly rich and diverse region of the world, culturally and religiously; it is not the ethnoreligious monolith Western racists and Orientalists want us to conceive of it as (it's much easier to dehumanize, bomb, and rob the natural resources of peoples you have collapsed into an unvariegated blob).



This “shitstorm” of which you speak – what does it entail?
Flying jets into skyscrapers?
Random beheadings?
Strapping bombs onto women and children?



"threatened to disrupt the school environment" (read: engage in terrorism)


Terrorism? Doesn’t really look like it.
Speaking loudly at a PTA meeting?
Maybe.
So making threats and threatening to disrupt the school environment is ok with you?
LAzy troll wrote:
If speaking out against religion being taught in schools equates to a terrorist act, then we should perhaps be keeping a closer eye on the ACLU.
Whaddaya think?
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 7:00 am

Did some dumbass mention Cliven Bundy earlier?
Christian extremists pose threat: Column
Quote :
Islamists may draw our attention, but we need to keep an eye on Bundy and his ilk.

Just when it seemed as if Nevada deadbeat rancher Cliven Bundy had ridden off into the news media sunset, he has come trotting back with a challenge to Attorney General Eric Holder to debate the existence of racism in America.

In an ad supporting Independent American Party candidate Kamau Bakari's challenge to Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., Bundy — white horse and all — chats with Bakari, who is African American, about the problem of black "political correctness," and how "black folks think white folks owe them something."

Bakari calls Bundy — who in April surrounded himself with armed supporters to avoid paying more than $1 million in grazing fees and penalties he had accumulated over two decades — "a brave white man." Then comes the challenge to Holder.

This could be dismissed as yet the latest, and perhaps strangest, episode in Bundy's self-created patriot saga, were it not for a recent report by the federally funded National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Drawing upon surveys of law enforcement and intelligence experts, the report cited the sovereign citizen movement — Bundy's law-defying, government-denying crowd — as the most potent U.S. terrorist threat: more threatening than Islamist jihadists, who along with militia/patriots, racist skinheads and neo-Nazis rounded out the top five.

Threat to homeland

Now, factor the Islamists — the usual default terrorist suspects — out of this list, and a striking pattern emerges. Contrary to the popular opinion that radical Islam is the primary threat to homeland security, Christianity provides the other four groups with their extremist rationale. All are in one way or another affiliated with the Christian Identity movement, a hodgepodge of anarchist and white supremacist politics dedicated to white Christian activism. It's all about God vs. government, and shoring up the rights of Anglo-Saxon Americans.

Since Bundy's armed standoff against federal agents in April, he has played this theme to the hilt. He recently told an audience in Utah that the almighty told him to fight a "civil war" against the federal government. His is, Bundy said, a spiritual battle.

In reporting this speech, the Associated Press noted that Bundy is a Mormon. But his God sounds a lot less like the Father/Mother God of Latter-day Saints than Christian Identity's Creator God, who made only white men in his image, and thus theologically justifies the kind of racism reflected in Bundy's widely reported musing as to whether "the Negro" was better off under slavery.

It's no coincidence that many factions of the Ku Klux Klan affiliate with Christian Identity. Nor that Christian Identity believers make up a rogues' gallery that includes the likes of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, serial bomber Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, the Montana Freemen member who killed abortion provider George Tiller. Roeder proudly bore the "sovereign citizen" banner.

Christian Identity

So, too, do the mélange of individuals and groups broadly identified as militia, Aryan, skinhead and neo-Nazi who construct their ideology from the Christian Identity toolbox. Many of them showed up at Bundy's standoff. One of them — Jerad Miller — was judged to be too much of a loose cannon and apparently was told to leave. Two months later, he and his wife, Amanda, staged a mass murder in Las Vegas.

The mainstream news media have been remarkably slow when it comes to zeroing in on the pervasive reality of hate-based Christian extremism. It is easier, after all, to blame the un-American other. In 2012, six Sikhs were killed and three wounded in Milwaukee by Wade Michael Page, a neo-Nazi skinhead. The "dangerous other" isn't always Muslim or Muslim-looking. The Millers affixed a swastika to the body of one of the two police officers they killed.

Nevada journalist Jon Ralston told MSNBC's Ed Schultz that the really scary thing about the sovereignty movement is its members are beginning to think they are mainstream. Meanwhile, members of the movement are adopting Christian rhetoric, "evoking Scripture ... and equating the Constitution with Scripture."

The Bundy standoff — initially presented as prairie populism by popular media well beyond Fox News — reflects violent currents far deeper and older in American, and Christian, history. It needs to be seen for what it is — religious extremism taken to potentially lethal ends. To the extent that we as a society fail to grapple with the religious element in extremist violence, the blood is on all of our hands.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 7:28 am

Artie60438 wrote:
   
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.



Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Allow me to reconcile my egregious error.
Does speaking out about mentioning a particular religion in school equate to a terrorist act?
To claim that someone who merely speaks out about a religion being mentioned in his child’s classroom is a terrorist, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that shoving a woman around is not an act of violence, requires the mindset of a seriously – and I mean seriously – fucked up individual.
Sound like anyone you know?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 10:07 am

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.



Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
[b]Allow me to reconcile my egregious error.
Does speaking out about mentioning a particular religion in school equate to a terrorist act?
To claim that someone who merely speaks out about a religion being mentioned in his child’s classroom is a terrorist, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that shoving a woman around is not an act of violence, requires the mindset of a seriously – and I mean seriously – fucked up individual.
Sound like anyone you know?
Miss the part where he threatened to disrupt classes? Why not try it for yourself? Wander down to your local school and threaten to "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen." and see what reaction you'll get.

I figure within less than 5 minutes you'd be on your knees,fingers interlaced behind your head,and guns pointing at you until you're handcuffed,especially if you brought your penis extender with you
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 10:36 am

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.



Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Allow me to reconcile my egregious error.
Does speaking out about mentioning a particular religion in school equate to a terrorist act?
To claim that someone who merely speaks out about a religion being mentioned in his child’s classroom is a terrorist, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that shoving a woman around is not an act of violence, requires the mindset of a seriously – and I mean seriously – fucked up individual.
Sound like anyone you know?

Miss the part where he threatened to disrupt classes? Why not try it for yourself? Wander down to your local school and threaten to "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen." and see what reaction you'll get.

I figure within less than 5 minutes you'd be on your knees,fingers interlaced behind your head,and guns pointing at you until you're handcuffed,especially if you brought your penis extender with you




So, you can’t acknowledge that a man shoving a woman around is an act of violence, yet a man who “threatened to disrupt classes” is now to be considered violent, and classified as a full-blown terrorist?
Yeah, he’s right up there with Mohammed Atta.

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Do you know what actions he planned to take in order to disrupt classes?
Maybe throwing erasers?
Pulling pigtails?
If you know what actions he planned to take, please share.
If not, you might want to rethink categorizing him as a terrorist.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 3:21 pm

happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.



Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Allow me to reconcile my egregious error.
Does speaking out about mentioning a particular religion in school equate to a terrorist act?
To claim that someone who merely speaks out about a religion being mentioned in his child’s classroom is a terrorist, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that shoving a woman around is not an act of violence, requires the mindset of a seriously – and I mean seriously – fucked up individual.
Sound like anyone you know?

Miss the part where he threatened to disrupt classes? Why not try it for yourself? Wander down to your local school and threaten to "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen." and see what reaction you'll get.

I figure within less than 5 minutes you'd be on your knees,fingers interlaced behind your head,and guns pointing at you until you're handcuffed,especially if you brought your penis extender with you




b]So, you can’t acknowledge that a man shoving a woman around is an act of violence, yet a man who “threatened to disrupt classes” is now to be considered violent, and classified as a full-blown terrorist?
Yeah, he’s right up there with Mohammed Atta.

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Do you know what actions he planned to take in order to disrupt classes?
Maybe throwing erasers?
Pulling pigtails?
If you know what actions he planned to take, please share.
If not, you might want to rethink categorizing him as a terrorist.[/b]

Move along troll and take your straw man arguments with you. I've clearly won the discussion.Sleep
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 3:42 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
   
I think you should actually read the article before making a fool of yourself again. Teaching history and mentioning Islam in a historical reference does not equate to religion being taught.



Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Allow me to reconcile my egregious error.
Does speaking out about mentioning a particular religion in school equate to a terrorist act?
To claim that someone who merely speaks out about a religion being mentioned in his child’s classroom is a terrorist, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that shoving a woman around is not an act of violence, requires the mindset of a seriously – and I mean seriously – fucked up individual.
Sound like anyone you know?

Miss the part where he threatened to disrupt classes? Why not try it for yourself? Wander down to your local school and threaten to "bring a sh*tstorm down on them like they’ve never seen." and see what reaction you'll get.

I figure within less than 5 minutes you'd be on your knees,fingers interlaced behind your head,and guns pointing at you until you're handcuffed,especially if you brought your penis extender with you




b]So, you can’t acknowledge that a man shoving a woman around is an act of violence, yet a man who “threatened to disrupt classes” is now to be considered violent, and classified as a full-blown terrorist?
Yeah, he’s right up there with Mohammed Atta.

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing

Do you know what actions he planned to take in order to disrupt classes?
Maybe throwing erasers?
Pulling pigtails?
If you know what actions he planned to take, please share.
If not, you might want to rethink categorizing him as a terrorist.[/b]

Move along troll and take your straw man arguments with you. I've clearly won the discussion.Sleep



You have not even engaged in an argument, much less won an argument.
You see, a bona fide argument would go something like this:

1. Someone (you) says something incredibly stupid.

2. Another person (me) asks you to back up your ridiculous assertions.

3. You provide what you believe to be justification and logic for your aforementioned idiocy, and we continue to discuss the matter.



What happened instead, however, went something like this:

1. Someone (you) said something incredibly stupid.

2. Another person (me) asked you to back up your ridiculous assertions.

3. You called me a troll and ran away with your skirt fluttering and your panties exposed.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   10/30/2014, 4:38 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
   

Now, factor the Islamists — the usual default terrorist suspects — out of this list, and a striking pattern emerges.



Yes, I suppose that if you factor violent psychotic Islamists out of the list, they don’t look so bad after all.

Rolling Eyes



Artie60438 wrote:
   
The Bundy standoff — initially presented as prairie populism by popular media well beyond Fox News — reflects violent currents far deeper and older in American, and Christian, history. It needs to be seen for what it is — religious extremism taken to potentially lethal ends.



“…. religious extremism taken to potentially lethal ends ….”



.... as opposed to violent Islamist extremism taken to actual lethal ends.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   1/8/2015, 11:52 am

http://michellemalkin.com/2015/01/07/shocker-white-house-still-unsure-of-motive-behind-charlie-hebdo-attack-in-paris/


Shocker: White House still unsure of motive behind Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris


By Doug Powers  •  January 7, 2015 08:36 PM


One of the terrorists involved in the killing of 12 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo in Paris has turned himself in, and two suspects are said to be still at large.
According to the BBC, “witnesses said they heard the gunmen shouting ‘We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad’ and ‘God is Great’ in Arabic (‘Allahu Akbar’).” Given those reports, and the fact that the magazine’s office has been previously attacked over its Islam-based jokes, the Obama White House… still isn’t sure of the motive for the attack:
Earlier today, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the U.S. would be working with its French counterparts to determine exactly who was behind the shooting, and what the motivation was.





President Barack Obama:  “Why did you slaughter these people?”

(Alleged) Terrorist: “Allahu Akbar!!!!”

President Barack Obama: “What?”

(Alleged) Terrorist: “I said, ‘Allahu Akbar, you infidel pig’.”

President Barack Obama: “Huh? What do you mean by that?”

(Alleged) Terrorist: “I mean that we will kill all who do not bow before Muhammad and enslave and rape their mothers, wives, and daughters.”

President Barack Obama: “But, that’s …. not nice, I guess is the phrase I’m looking for. Once again, why would you do such a thing?”

(Alleged) Terrorist: “Allahu Akbar.”

President Barack Obama, to aide:  “Find out the motivation behind these killings. Stat!”
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   1/8/2015, 12:05 pm

It shouldn't be too long before the rabid right extremists blames this on Barry...oh wait, they are.
How shocking.
7 Despicable Ways Fox News Exploited The Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack In France (Including Benghazi)
It takes a special person to exploit a horrific tragedy like the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo in Paris as an excuse for 15 minutes of smearing Americans you disagree with – but Fox News’ Outnumbered co-hosts were more than up to the task

I counted six ways the Outnumbered hosts did it.


Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/7_despicable_ways_fox_news_exploited_the_charlie_hebdo_terror_attack_in_france_including_benghazi_010715#8CBHO5ITHSktt2oB.99

Fox Fear Mongers Charlie Hebdo Terror Attacks On The Way To U.S. If We Don’t Torture
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/fox_fear_mongers_charlie_hebdo_terror_attacks_on_the_way_to_u_s_if_we_don_t_torture_010715#vRTywARf2u3qB4rx.99
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   1/8/2015, 12:33 pm

edge540 wrote:
It shouldn't be too long before the rabid right extremists blames this on Barry...oh wait, they are.
How shocking.
7 Despicable Ways Fox News Exploited The Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack In France (Including Benghazi)
It takes a special person to exploit a horrific tragedy like the terrorist attack at Charlie Hebdo in Paris as an excuse for 15 minutes of smearing Americans you disagree with – but Fox News’ Outnumbered co-hosts were more than up to the task

I counted six ways the Outnumbered hosts did it.
All the while totally ignoring a case of domestic terrorism... Shocked
Bombing of NAACP headquarters hearkens to bad old days
Quote :
A manhunt is underway for a suspect in the bombing this week of a small NAACP chapter headquarters about an hour south of Denver. The incident in Colorado Springs has shaken that quiet city, sending ripples across the country as the nation continues to whether a months-long wave of social and racial unrest.

Federal agents and local police say someone placed an improvised explosive device and containers of gasoline outside of the one-story building that houses the Colorado Springs NAACP and a black-owned barber shop on Tuesday morning. The detonation left the outer wall and a swath of the sidewalk charred, sent items inside the building crashing to the ground and the nerves of patrons and volunteer members of the NAACP shaken.

No one was hurt in the blast and the containers of gasoline apparently failed to ignite. But the many what-if’s, given the ongoing turmoil sparked by a rash of police killings and non-indictment of officers across the country, begs memories of a bygone era when white supremacists turned southern black communities into bombing fields.

Quote :
The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are currently investigating the blast. Investigators say they are searching for a potential person of interest described as a balding white man possibly in his 40s. Witnesses reportedly saw a man matching that description fleeing the scene after the explosion driving a dirty white pickup truck.
Probably one of their viewers Evil or Very Mad
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   1/9/2015, 11:43 am

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396027/media-cowards-and-cartoon-jihad-michelle-malkin

JANUARY 9, 2015 12:00 AM

Media Cowards and the Cartoon Jihad

Paying obligatory lip service to the ten cartoonists and staffers of the Paris satirical weekly Charlie Hebdowho were slaughtered for offending Islam, the Timesintoned: “It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.”
Advertisement
My GPS tracker of journalistic hypocrisy immediately identified theTimes editorial board’s high-altitude location — ensconced atop their own Mt. Everest of absurdity and self-unawareness.
The Fishwrap of Record priggishly refuses to print any of the Islam-provoking art that cost the brave French journalists their lives. In case you forgot (as its own editorialists have), the Times cowered in 2005–2006 when the Mohammed Cartoons conflagration first ignited. And the publication is capitulating again.
Behold this groveling bow to terrorists dictating democracy’s standards, from a newspaper spokesman in a statement this week:
“Under Times standards, we do not normally publish images or other material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities. After careful consideration,Times editors decided that describing the cartoons in question would give readers sufficient information to understand today’s story.”
So says the paper that blithely published a Catholic-bashing photo of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and defended the taxpayer-funded “Piss Christ” exhibit thus: “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.”
While they feign free-speech fortitude, what Times editorialists really don’t want to see is their heads completely disconnected from their necks. Neither do editors at the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, MSNBC, and CNBC, who won’t publish any possibly, remotely upsetting images of Mohammed, either.
But these quivering double-talkers aren’t even the most laughable of Cartoon Jihad cowards.
The Associated Press wins the pusillanimity prize after invoking the sensitivity card to explain why it refrained from publishing “deliberately provocative” Mo ’toons — even though the media conglomerate had been selling deliberately provocative “Piss Christ” photos on its website. After the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney pointed out the double standards, AP tried to cover its tracks by yanking the pic.
More absurdity? The New York Daily News pixelated a Mo ’toon carried byCharlie Hebdo as if it were pornography. CNN did the same in 2006, when it explained it was censoring the offending images “in respect for Islam” and “because the network believes its role is to cover the events surrounding the publication of the cartoons while not unnecessarily adding fuel to the controversy itself.”
And therein lies the cartoon capitulationists’ grand self-delusion. This isn’t about cartoons.

………

Cartoons did not start militant Islam’s fire. Neither did the Bushes, Israel, The Satanic Verses, the pope, beauty pageants, KFC restaurants in the Middle East, Mohammed teddy bears, or a YouTube video.
The Religion of Perpetual Outrage hates all infidels for all reasons for all time. The targeting of Mohammed cartoonists is a convenient excuse to feed the eternal flame of radical Islamists’ hatred of the West. If it isn’t cartoons, it’s something else. The grudge is everlasting.
Instead of acknowledging their gutlessness in the face of Koran-inspired Muslim vigilantes, press pontificators cloak their fear in the mumbo-jumbo of “tolerance.” They demand that the rest of us pledge fealty to their selective multi-culti sensitivities lest we be branded “Islamophobes.”
And then they have the audacity to play “I am free-speech Spartacus” with those who risked life and limb to speak truth to Islamic-supremacist power.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   2/19/2015, 6:16 am

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/02/18/obama-religion-doesn-t-cause-terrorism.html

Obama: Religion Doesn’t Cause Terrorism

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Despite a world rocked by attacks carried out by Muslims, President Obama dismissed religion's role in global terrorism. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for terrorism," Obama said Wednesday afternoon at a White House summit on combating violent extremism. Specifically citing Al Qaeda and ISIS, Obama stressed that the U.S. is "not at war with Islam, we are at war with people who have perverted Islam." Obama has come under criticism for trying to disassociate ISIS from Islam, even though it calls itself the Islamic State and wants to establish a caliphate in the Middle East.



“People are responsible for terrorism.”


Deep thinking.
Really, really deep fucking thinking.
It’s not surprising that He’s president.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   2/20/2015, 10:09 am

happy jack wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/02/18/obama-religion-doesn-t-cause-terrorism.html

Obama: Religion Doesn’t Cause Terrorism

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Despite a world rocked by attacks carried out by Muslims, President Obama dismissed religion's role in global terrorism. "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for terrorism," Obama said Wednesday afternoon at a White House summit on combating violent extremism. Specifically citing Al Qaeda and ISIS, Obama stressed that the U.S. is "not at war with Islam, we are at war with people who have perverted Islam." Obama has come under criticism for trying to disassociate ISIS from Islam, even though it calls itself the Islamic State and wants to establish a caliphate in the Middle East.



“People are responsible for terrorism.”


Deep thinking.
Really, really deep fucking thinking.
It’s not surprising that He’s president.

When your hero Dubya made the following remarks you right-wing lunatics never said a word. But when the black guy says similar things you loons immediately reach for your pitchforks and torches. Rolling Eyes

Quote :
“Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”

“Our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil.”

“Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.”

“The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.”

“There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/said-obama-vs-bush-islam/
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   3/27/2015, 11:03 am

http://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-recaptures-gwoza-boko-haram-military-114107456.html

Boko Haram fighters told to 'kill wives' as troops take its 'HQ'



It’s incomprehensible that a band capable of producing something as beautiful as A Whiter Shade of Pale has come to this.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   4/2/2015, 9:47 pm

http://news.sky.com/story/1457254/militants-kill-147-in-kenyan-university-attack

Militants Kill 147 In Kenyan University Attack

00:14, UK,Friday 03 April 2015

An attack by masked terrorists who stormed a university in eastern Kenya has left at least 147 people dead.
Around 80 more have been confirmed as wounded in the siege at Garissa University, which has now ended after the four attackers detonated their suicide vests.
The gunmen hurled grenades and fired automatic rifles as students were sleeping, shooting dead dozens before setting Muslims free and holding Christians and others hostage. Survivors said the masked attackers singled out non-Muslim students and gunned them down without mercy. All of the surviving Christians were then forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/5/2015, 3:25 pm

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISLAMIC_STATE_TEXAS_SHOOTING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-05-07-17-22

May 5, 12:38 PM EDT


ISLAMIC STATE CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEXAS CARTOON ATTACK


BY MAAMOUN YOUSSEF
ASSOCIATED PRESS


CAIRO (AP) -- The Islamic State group claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a weekend attack at a center near Dallas, Texas, that was exhibiting cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad - though it offered no evidence of a direct link to the attackers.
An audio statement on the extremist group's Al Bayan radio station said that "two soldiers of the caliphate" carried out Sunday's attack in Garland and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future.
The Islamic State did not provide details and it was unclear whether the group was opportunistically claiming the attack. It was the first time the extremists, who frequently call for attacks against the West, claimed responsibility for one in the United States.
It was also unclear from the statement whether the group, which holds a third of Syria and Iraq, had an actual hand in the operation, or whether the two suspects had pledged allegiance to the group and then carried it out on their own.
The statement was read on Al Bayan radio - a station based in the Syrian city of Raqqa, which the group has proclaimed the capital of its self-styled caliphate.
"We tell ... America that what is coming will be more grievous and more bitter and you will see from the soldiers of the caliphate what will harm you, God willing," it said.
Two suspects in the attack were shot dead after opening fire at a security guard outside the center. Officials identified them as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi.
According to mainstream Islamic tradition, any physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad or other prophets is considered blasphemous. Drawings similar to those featured at the Texas event have sparked violence around the world.




It might be a good idea to organize more of these cartoon contests in order to draw the cockroaches out into the light, where they can be more easily squashed.
Incidentally, great shooting by the cop. The Islamofascist pigs were wearing full body armor, so the officer presumably got off a couple of head shots, with a pistol no less, even while he himself was under fire.
Impressive.
Now, how long before he's charged with brutality?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 9:04 am

happy jack wrote:



It might be a good idea to organize more of these cartoon contests in order to draw the cockroaches out into the light, where they can be more easily squashed.

Yes that's an absolutely brilliant idea, given that this attack was so spectacularly successful, I'm sure more highly trained idiots  like these two will try it again.
Ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is even more brilliant.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   

Back to top Go down
 
The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 4Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: