Slap in the Face of America ~ Muslim Flag to fly on 911 in N. Carolina
While more and more Muslims in America are not hiding their pro-Sharia agenda, non-Muslims here are also aiding them in their attempted Islamic take over of the country. Here is another example of dhimmi aid, and a highly disrespectful one at that!
Muslim Flag Set To Fly On 9/11 In King
KING, N.C. — A Muslim flag is scheduled to by flown at the public war memorial at Central Park during the week of the 9/11 anniversary, sparking the ire of some residents in King who plan fight back against what they call a change in the policy.
Resident Stephen James said Tuesday he is talking to an attorney with plans to ask a judge to block Steven Hewett, who originally said he planned to fly Christian flags but recently made a revision to replace those with Buddhist, Muslim and Jewish flags.
James said Hewett’s change of course goes against a compromise agreed upon late last year after a complaint was raised over the Christian flag that formerly flew above the memorial.
“There’s nothing in the policy that says you can change from the original policy,” James said. “When the applications were done, you had to submit a picture of the flag you were going to fly. There were people with applications who were kicked out because they didn’t have pictures of flags they were going to fly.”
Hewett was one of a handful of King residents drawn last December to decide which flag flies at the park from week to week. In total, 110 applications were received from relatives of war veterans who are honored at the park. Under the original schedule, the Christian flag was to be flown for 51 weeks, with no flag being flown last week.
The revised schedule was released Friday. On it, Hewitt plans to fly a Buddhist flag next week. A Muslim flag will fly Sept. 5 -11, a Jewish flag will fly Nov. 21 – 27 followed the next week by an atheist flag.
James said he’s most enraged by the prospect of a Muslim flag flying at the memorial during the week of Sept. 11.
“How offensive is it going to be that there’s a Muslim flag flying over a veteran’s memorial?” James asked. “That affects more people than just here in King. It affects those in Winston-Salem and everywhere.”
http://loganswarning.com/2011/06/21/sla … -carolina/
This is one of the most insulting things apologist America has done to insult real America. There is no need to fly that flagh at anmy war memorial... ever, never mind on the remembrance of 9/11. The people responsible should be ashamed of themselves and ran out of town, I would not even waste the tar and feathers.
Wake up America... there is no reason to celebrate this religion on that day or for that anniversary. None at all!
And as far as Muslims who died in 9/11 in the towers, they will be honored under the American flag as all the other victrims will be.This statement is just distortion, to help promote fear.
Actually, its not, if this memorial is owned and operated by the city, flying a religous flag is a violation of law. Seperation of church and state would not allow the flag to fly legally. But if its private, they can fly what they want
I think you're a bit slow. My position was changed. Do try to read ALL my posts on this topic. Then you would know that my position was changed, and you wouldn't be posting this statement.
Sorry, Like most people I read the first one then the next one and so one. And like most people I comment as I go. So if you changed your mind in a later thread that I have not read yet I am sorry.I can only read one thing at a time, its a burden, but thats all I can do. I
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0First. Who knew there was an atheist flag?
I would agree with the man about the timing of flying a muslim flag. As would any muslim with a compassionate bone in their body. And, the last minute change does appear suspicious.
But, I'm afraid I do believe in trying to be inclusive. The Muslim flag is not offensive, in and of itself. If a sampling of flags of different faiths are flown I see no reason to exclude that one.
I'd be interested to know if he would be making such a fuss if the confederate flag was to be flown. That one offends many in the south, but they suffer no embarassment waving it around anyway."The sorrowful song of bugles will echo across the country this coming Monday in remembrance of fallen soldiers and their living comrades. Memorial Day's annual angst will be relived by millions of Americans who have lost a loved one....
American Muslims will be among the mourners. Although only 1 in 400 soldiers is a Muslim, there are multitudes of Arabic, Urdu, Persian and other names engraved on headstones in military cemeteries across the U.S.
One such Muslim soldier is Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, the 20-year-old corporal who died decorated in the military honors of a Bronze Star and Purple Heart...."
America is not at war with Islam, though there are American fools who think so.
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additi … l-Day.htmlI am fully aware of the fact that there are muslims who have died for our country, and I am no fool.
I am simply saying that it is not an unkindness to reserve the day the muslim flag is flown for a more appropriate time. To insist otherwise would be inconsiderate. You cannot deny the fact that it was radicals within that religion who caused the pain. It would be no different from flying a christian flag over the graves of those abortion doctors murdered by christian zealots. Or draping an Israeli flag over the coffin of a Palestinian who had died due to the actions of an orthodox zealot.Its my understanding that the KKK is entirely christian. Would you say they represent Christian beliefs? Its the same thing. A radial minority of a religion can't be held up as representatives of that religion.
Obviously common courtesy and consideration for the feelings of others is a concept you are not familiar with. We are destined to disagree on this point.
Not all, some do not believe in God at all. But KKK promotes racial hate, not preaching the bible
You'r right, America is not... but Islam is at war with America and the west. And there are many fools who think ignoring that fact changes it. And they are wrong.
The contraction of 'you are' is you're. We are delighted to see your hub score is coming up.
My 7 year old daughter has a best friend, a black girl whose parents are from Africa and Muslim. We have become friends - the 2 girls are like sisters.
There is no Muslim conspiracy to impose their law. (There are some wacko Muslims in the world - there are some wacko Christians in the world..)
I do object to spreading religious bigotry, fear, and hate. Those who do it are beneath contempt.No none at all Doug...
--"Washington, DC: Huge Shopping Mall Development Project Must be Shariah Compliant
A huge development project in Washington DC must conform to the sharia (Islamic law). This is the next level of imposing Islamic law on the secular marketplace. A shariah compliant mall on taxpayer land.
The New York Times says here that the property is primarily public property:
"CityCenterDC will fill 10 acres, all city-owned except for the land beneath two condo buildings."
This is the jizya (the poll tax imposed by Islamic supremacists on non-Muslims). City lands and tax abatements used to prohibit bars, liquor and infidel banks? And this hasn't created a firestorm?
Imposing religious restrictions on public property violates DC's Human Rights Act. Not to mention violation of the separation of church mosque and state (though under Islam, mosque is state).
Qatari Investors: Huge Downtown Development Project Must Conform to Shariah
by Lydia DePillis Washington City Paper
The New York Times' profile of the CityCenterDC project has mostly nothing new in it if you've been following the huge downtown project at all. But it does include this fascinating nugget about the requirements of its Qatari investors:
Even before the Qatari investors became involved, Hines and Archstone determined that leasing to banks would not help them create lively shopping streets, Mr. Alsup said. But as it happened, their hesitancy on bank branches meshed with the policies of their financial partners, who adhere to the restrictions of Shariah, or Islamic law, including the ban on collecting interest. Restaurants will be able to serve liquor, but retailers whose primary business involves selling alcohol will not be allowed, Mr. Alsup said.
In their marketing materials, Hines and Archstone say they intend to provide “an authentic place for urban residents to socialize outside their homes.”
So, no bars or banks for the biggest downtown construction project in recent memory! As Bill Alsup alluded to, banks aren't all that great for a city streetscape, and it's admirable that they planned to forego such a dependable and high-rent-paying tenant. It's less advantageous, though, to not have business devoted primarily to selling alcohol. CityCenterDC is unlikely to be plagued by liquor stores, but it could definitely use a few places to be out at night drinking without getting a full dinner. Could Qatari money turn CityCenterDC into more of a black hole than the last piece of the puzzle in a living downtown?"
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
I understand contractions perfectly, Doug. I am just not anal as regards comments in a thread.
And as you all know I am not one of those reduced, by the ignorance of my knowlege being shown to the world, to personal attacks on grammer or spelling, like many on here.For those who won't waste their time on the wingnut site you cite, the foreign investors put down the restriction, not any religious group or government office or court.
If DC doesn't like it, they don't have to take the money.It is a religious restriction. Period, Doug.
Alchohol and Banks who have interest are halal, forbidden. So don't start twisting because it won't work. You leftists... so quick to scream seperation of church and state, till it is Islam. Then you all coward down.So is the requirement that you must be Mormon to enter the depths of a Mormon temple.
The investor can lay down any restrictions they want as a condition to putting up the money.
I did not fault the Kotch brothers for offering millions to USF with the condition the Kotch bros could reject faculty selections. I fault USF for being an academic whore.
Investors can and will put conditions on investing. When the conditions are onerous, the receiver can and should walk away.You do not have the Right to discriminate based on religious grounds, or beliefs, at all. Regardless of which way the discrination is applied.
Does that standard also extend to Planned Parenthood. Conservatives are attacking them (and their funding) for care that has nothing to do with abortion simply because they support a woman's right to control over her body.
Conseravtives want to ban funds to PPH not because they do abortions, but because they use the Grant money to do abortions. Like you said the investor can do what they want and put restrictions on the money. In this case the investor is the American tax dollar. You see, PPH has to file tax returns and report how they spent the tax dollars they recieve. Problem was the numbers do not line up. Lets say without Gov assistance, they take in $100. That means they have $100 dollars fro abortions as the rest of Gov monies pay for everything else. But it turned out they spent $175. So it shows they are spending $75 of tax money to pay for abortions. I tried to find the CBO report to show you the actual numbers but could not find it.
I agree PPH does alot for womans health care outside of abortions. I suggest they seperate into 2 companies so that they can continue to do both actions and recive tax money for the one company that addresses all the health care issues except abortion.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?! You started this whole thread BECAUSE you WANT to discriminate based upon religious grounds. Again...as comical as it gets.
Tex,
I am not sure he wants to disciminate based on religion. I think he is trying to use the seperation of church and state but is not getting that across in his writings. But in this case, the real issue depends on if the memorial is owned by the city or is it private. If owned by the city, seperation of church and state apply and the flags cannot legally fly, but if it is private, they can fly anything they want. But I will say no matter what, as a former NY firefighter I am so offened they would fly that flag on 911, I could explodeAmerican View - First off, I fully respect the people who had to deal with 9/11, if you were on the ground during that time you really are someone who had to deal with something most people never should.
However, the Muslim flag is not a terrorist flag. The reason that the Muslim flag was flying in that graveyard is because there were berieved familiies of Muslim soldiers who died fighting for America. Those people fought and died in battle, just as you may have been on the ground trying to save American lives during 9/11.
9/11 did not happen because of religion, it happened because of politics, I won't get in to the debate of exactly who caused what, but there is very little religious cause to the wars in Afghanistan or iraq, no matter how you look at it, nor how matter soe warmongers try to make it seem otherwise.This, well it could be a good debate that would rage on loger than the wars last. I have a hard time seeing the difference, After all, it is the Muslims that say they are at war because Allah wants them to be. And they were the architects of 911. Now I do not know about the Muslim faith. actually, I do not believe in God at all. So religon does not enter my opinions. Saying that, I do know not all muslims are warmongers.
I do understand your point of honoring those whom gave all for this country, I am far from being against that. But the issue is the Memorial is owned by the City. Flying the religous flag no matter which one, is a violation of church and state. If it was private, fly anything you want.
As for 911, I was ther for 3 weeks, Even if it was not my job, it was my honor to be there in my countries moment of need. I wrote a hub called we are not heros, but Hubpages will not publish it. They are funny sometimes. I to have severe breathing problems and am in the hospital now, been here since last December. Despite that Knowing what I know now, I would not change one single thing about my 15 years as a NY firefighter. I do get very upset when one tries to desecrate the memories of 343 of my brothers and trivialize the deaths of thousands of Americans who died that day. Todd Beamer was more of a hero than I was if you ask me. I was paid to give my lifed, he did it to protect his country, no pay involved. All of those citizens are heroes.
No, he didn't bring separation in to the arguement until it was well under way and perhaps he realised he was being a bit of a bigot.
What! halal means lawful or legal, not forbidden. Sheesh.
nd who do you think those investors are Doug? hhhmmmmmmmm
Naturally what should we expect from a Leader In Chief such as the War Monger Free Pass Obama the Knight whom has relatives in the Uk.
Its a shame that the country is being lead by Rogues of almos
t any description following the leading characters on and around
Capitol Hill.Its almost as if anything goes,including dealing de
th blows to the Senior Citizens and Disabled and exepecting the
population to support a High Tech Training in careers which are
mainly the ones whom are essentially welathy or with higher edeucationsNot to mentioon all the other countries he claims he has roots in
NOT A FLAG!!!
NOT IN NORTH CAROLINA!!!
NOT ON 9/11!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
THE ONLY REASON I'M MAD IS BECAUSE THE ARTICLE MADE IT SOUND LIKE I SHOULD BE MAD!!!Evan,
Not a flag, not on 911
NOT ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATESSo you're saying we should round up every Muslim; put them in concentration camps; demand that they reject their faith; and if they fail to do so ship them off to another country?
I'm really failing to understand your argument.
"NOT A FLAG!!! NOT ON 911!!!! NOT ANYWHERE IN THE US!!!!"
Replace "islamic flag" with "Christian Cross", and you'll see how foolish you sound to me.you fail to understand for one needs a mind to understand. Lets make some more stuff up like the lefty you are
where did I ever say this:
"So you're saying we should round up every Muslim; put them in concentration camps; demand that they reject their faith; and if they fail to do so ship them off to another country"?
I did not. So where did you get it? YOU MADE IT UP LIKE SO MUCH OTHER STUFF
"Replace "islamic flag" with "Christian Cross", and you'll see how foolish you sound to me"
.Well the only one that sounds foolish is you as you made up another statement. I have said from the begining and still say that there cannot be ANY RELIGOUS FLAGS ON THAT SITE!!!!
I keep citing seperation of church and state, but as always you could not read that. I also said the only flag should be our countries flag
Please learn to read. I am getting tired of correcting youWow, AV - is "you're a lefty" the best insult you can come up with?
If you want to prevent all the Muslims from showing their faith "NOT ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES", then what do you think the logical end result of such a policy would be?
I'm not making this stuff up - That is the logical conclusion to forcing people to give up the expression of religion. What next? No burkhas? No churches? No citing of the Koran?
Where does it end? When will you be happy?
AV - I actually took you seriously when you were arguing against Ron Paul. I see that it's hopeless to not only convince you, but to get a good argument out of you.Well you just showed your true colors, the only reason you are here is to insult, make up stuff as you go to achieve that goal. Sorry to inform you I do not look to insult unlike you. I state facts and you cannot comprehend them
"If you want to prevent all the Muslims from showing their faith "NOT ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES", then what do you think the logical end result of such a policy would be?"
I challenge you to show me where I said this. Once more you make stuff up. So here is my challenge show me where I said it, I will leave Hubpages, if you cannot, you have to leave hubpages. You will not be able to since I never said or even feel that way. So goodbye Evan we will not miss you
PS, you get schooled by me and others all the time but do not admit to it. If you want to argue, go argue with your family. We discuss topics here, something you clearly cannot graspI'm not getting schooled by you guys, you guys are making idiotic arguments bent on hatred and malice.
Enjoy your life, troll.Wrong again
Troll, who has been name calling and cussing? Sure was not me. Keep up the insults for you have nothing else to sayIt just shows he is totally beat down like a little bitch!
You posted nothing but facts and he comes like a little girl and name calling.
That is all the proof you need to know you schooled him badly!
He is not man enough to admit when wrong and shows his true character.
Great job
More on this no story:-
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/ju … r-1148785/John,
Thanks for posting this link. It answered all my questions and proved some of my thoughts. First, the site is owned by the City, therefore raising a religous flag is a violation of church and state. After the Christian flag was flying for a while it started to get objections. After getting so many complaints they had a meeting and voted to take it down. Research finding the minutes to that meeting reveals that the City attorney advised them they were indeed in violation of the sereration of church and state clause. The council voted to take it down. I guess that by doing this lottery system they are doing to allow veterans to fly a flag on their chosen week, the city may think they did not put it up so they are not in violation. Well they are wrong for it is still their property and they are ultimatly responsible for what flies thereIt's NOT a violation of Church and State:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
In fact, according to the Constitution, doing what YOU want -- keeping the flag off the building -- would be Unconstitutional.
You quote the Constitution only when it suffices you.No, I quote it accuratly, if you read on the law is posted here. Read it, understand it.
Its not a matter of the Constitution doing what I want, its everyone following the Constituion, that fact seems to evade youI fail to see how "reading the constitution" can be construed as me not understanding the constitution.
You clearly are just calling me an idiot without addressing points.
Gonna have to start ignoring you, troll.Wrong again, man this is getting real old.
"I fail to see how "reading the constitution" can be construed as me not understanding the constitution"
You would fail to realize that reading leads to being educated to speak on a given subject. Was nice to see you admit to not reading it therefore having no idea what you were writing about.
Ignore me all you want. I gave you a 2 challenges and you did not take me up on any. You have no credibility on anything. You have not been right on the original thread and not correct on any of the subject changes you made in order to try and hide the fact you were wrong. It is you that we all should ignore.
The Islamic flag represents a religion, not a state, so all you Leant Leftist need to scream about seperation of church and state. This is a state war memorial You all have pushed for that seperation when it suited you... but only when it suits you it seems.
And doug... do not mistake my comment with the article. Read the story.
And there is no fear mongering... it is simply a matter of respect for all those who died in that attack and their familes and other Americans who find it insulting.
All you all and your respect and tolerance BS goes out the window when it comes to Islam... and it is so very telling.Yes, the flag represents a religion. So what? It's being put up in North Carolina. It's not being flown on the spot where 9/11 occurred.
A prime example of window dressing to support negativity. Good for you.
So untrue. And, you should seriously learn to stop talking about specific people and grouping them into larger groups of others, because it is apparent that is all you like to do with those who disagree with you. Again, good for you. You must be proud of yourself.
It is being flown on state property, Cags. That would be enough to get a Christian flag removed by Lean Leftists in a minute.
If it is on State property, then it should be removed. The only flag that should be on State property is the American Flag.
Casgil,
I see you did change your mind. Sorry about the earlier post. Wish all could do what you just did. ThanksStates and Cities can use their property as they wish, unless their Constitutions outlaw it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Thus, if the federal government were to remove it, then it would be unconstitutional.You can keep repeating that all you want.
The Leftists have sued for any displays of religion to be out of the Puiblic square. Go read all the cases I posted yesterday.
I know what the Constitution says, Evan. Aand I agree, we have the right to excersize our religion in public and on State or any other property, except somemone' elses private property who doesn't want it.
But the Left says no, and the Courts have ruled it so.
Again go read the cases... I agree we have the right to fly it, but since Christians cannot, then no-on else can either. You cannot show special treatment to one religion over another... that does violate the 1st amendment.
This is another instance where the Liberal Socialist Democrat Left and the Progressive right have pissed on the Constitution through Judicial fiat, just like they think they can over-ride it with Laws.
We have been betrayed, Evan, and our founding documents have been pissed on and shredded. Look at Time's cover this month.... they want the Constitution gone and are well on their way to accomplishing it."I know what the Constitution says, Evan. Aand I agree, we have the right to excersize our religion in public and on State or any other property, except somemone' elses private property who doesn't want it."
Well there you go. You agree with me.
But I suppose you're willing to sell your beliefs when it suits you? I am not.
The Constitution says what it says, and if "the lefties" are abusing it, then that does not give "the righties" permission to do the same.
Don't sell your beliefs, man!
I completely agree with you that our Constitution is dead. It has been sick since it was written, and has been dead since, at least, WWII.
But let's try to revive it, instead of just desecrating it more.Listen... do not twist what I say, Evan.
I have said from the beginning, I do not agree with the interpretations of the Courts as they stand now.
I also have said I do not believe their interperetations are valid or Constitutional. So screw your twisting of my words.
What I have also said is, it is the law of the land as it stands now and niether you nor I have a right to break the law.
So If Christians have to follow it... so do the Leftists and Islam... got it?
Read what I say and do not twist it. I do not sell my beliefs at all. That fact is firmly established in this forum... so go twist some leftist or progressives words. Not mine!
This twisting from a man who backs a NAZI lover, KKK supporting, libertarian, like Paul. What a joke.I didn't twist a damned thing you said - you were agreeing with me, but then you started saying things like "Congress is allowed to forbid Christians from flying a flag on a City government's building".
... even though you disagreed with it.
You actually said "X is true, but X is false because Y thinks that X is false".
Read the Constitution, as I know you have, and stick to your guns.
You're letting your "us vs them" mentality desecrate the Constitution, even when you yourself want the document to be resurrected.
Hatred is a dangerous devil, and it's making you fight against your own beliefs.Hatred is not evil.... Hatred is ignorence
I guess you know more that the Supreme court. You can practice your right to religiuos freedom all you want but cities, states and the US goverment cannot. Thats at the core of why this tread was started, You cannot fly a religious flag on governmet property as it violates sepereation of chercu and state. Even the city attorney in carolina in a council meting tols them publically, they violated this amendment and had to take the Christian flag down, the city complied.
The "Separation" principle and the Supreme Court
Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).[40] In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."some attorney said something that was contradictory to the language in the Constitution...
... and you agree with the attorney?
Whatevs.That is as per the Supreme Court. Your the one who cannot grasp the Constitution has been torn-up, by the Leftist/Progressives while you were asleep, and now your mad about it.
What the hell are you smoking? I've been on numerous forums arguing that the constitution needs to be restored. I've written numerous hubs about the same. And I link and recommend books who's sole purpose is to illustrate how the Constitution has been butchered.
This post of yours is border-line trolling: "I know one thing to be completely true -- in fact I've agreed on the issue with Evan numerous times in other posts -- but I'll just lie here to get his goat!"
Here's a great book illustrating how the Constitution has been murdered:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Consti … 0307405753
And here's another book illustrating how to resurrect it:
http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-To … amp;sr=1-1
I recommend both highly.
... heck, let's throw in a freebie:
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incor … amp;sr=1-1
Hell, here's another that illustrates the atrocious behavior of our government officials over the past 2 centuries:
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incor … amp;sr=1-1
If you go through my hubs, you'll see these books suggested numerous times.Then what are you freaking out about? I believe we all agree the Constitution has been thrown out and needs to be restored... but the current interpretation of it is the law of the land and you cannot change that arguing with us. And it states no Govt. property can have a display of faith... PERIOD!
Go now.. of to the Supreme Court with you to file your suit. You can even attach my name to it also.
And I do not need your literiture, Evan. I have read and studied the documents, and the founder writings as to the documents and their intent. I am very well versed in it. but I also know the current interpretations that stand as LAW in this country. And they do not agree with US.
So go read them yourself.I've actually read them all already.
You clearly didn't read my post.
My post said that your "Us vs. Them" mentality is causing you to go against your belief that the Constitution needs to be restored.
By saying things like "The lefties get to take Christian flags off buildings, thus we need to take off Muslim flags" goes against your belief that we need to restore the Constitution.
You've disagreed with "current interpretations" before, so why are you agreeing with them now?
The consistent argument is to say: "This is crap - every flag should be allowed to fly from every building. The federal government can't write a law banning the flying of any flag from a city or state building. And only a state or city constitutional amendment can prohibit the state or city from banning a flag to be flown."I would not allow that flag over any Americans grave on any day... do you understand what that flag symbolizes Evan? I bet not.
Black flags with white lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Harb/Kufr'- the "House Of War" or the "House of the Unbelievers", most commonly the first, because anywhere there is non-believers and Islam does not riegn supreme, is the "House of War".
Is that what you want to have represented over their graves... Isalm's intent to dominate this country. Not I. And I will tell you your rights to free speech and expression, of faith or not, do not get to be inciteful. And this is inciteful to the max!
And yes John I do believe that is the flag they want to fly... so no it doe not go up. It is truely inciteful and that is the intent behind flying it. WHERE THAT FLAG FLIES ISLAM IS AT WAR... and that is the fact of it.You're telling me that the flag that people wanted to fly over the building says "the house of war on it"?
Because now you're just making things up.
Evan,
Once more Where did TMM say "the flag that people wanted to fly over the building says "the house of war on it"?
So once more it is you that is making stuff up. And once more I challenge you. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!! I know you cannot do either.
Stop making things up and saying others are doing it. People in glass houses.......well you know the rest.
cag, if we moved the flag to your front yard, then by your comment above it would not matter correct? do not talk for North Carolina.
Your implication is utterly absurd. I said if the flag is on American STATE Property, then it has no business being up. What part do you not understand.
You posted to my comment, AFTER I adjusted my stance, once I found out it was on STATE OWNED property.
You making a statement about it being in my front lawn/yard. And, if it was, then it would stay wherever the person put it. I have no say in the manner.
If it was my own private property, then the flag would be burned, if someone put it in MY yard.just read up and saw that added post. Just for for a min. it felt like the statement implied as long as it is NC, so what? was answering that to try to say. It matters to the folks there, a lot from what I am told by people living there. nothing more than that, did not see the clarification post, I think we posted about same time, sorry man. nothing intended. but to say Carolina counts also.
"Islam" didn't kill the people on 9/11.
A bunch of people who were pissed off that we've been bombing their country and loved ones for the past 5 decades did.
So, flying a flag that is Islamic shouldn't really piss anyone off.True Islam did not kill on 9/11. The perps did it in the name of Islam.
What the hell are you talking about as far as bombing their country and loved ones for the past 5 decades?
We have never bombed Saudi Arabia. Where most were from.
I thought Sarah Palin was the only one with problems with geography. Oh that and Barry who thought there were 57 states.Yeah, and everyone knows that the people of 9/11 did what they did in the name of Saudi Arabia, NOT Islam.
...
...
... Yeah. They were all like "dude, let's go fly some planes into buildings because America hates freedom. Let's also yell out 'I love Saudi Arabia' when we crash".
Dude - we've been bombing Islamic countries for longer than I've been alive. We've been in the business of regime change for longer than I've been alive.
If China was doing that to us, we'd be over there bombing them.Evan,
Saudi Arabia? Really? Sorry, but Isalm has inspired the attacks upon the US and all other countries. Before you have a cow note what I said INSPIRED. I did not say Islam alone was responsible for the attack
I disagree with:
"Dude - we've been bombing Islamic countries for longer than I've been alive. We've been in the business of regime change for longer than I've been alive.
If China was doing that to us, we'd be over there bombing them".
First, I guess by your statement, you must be very young. You think the terrorists attack us because we have bombed them for loger than you were born? There is a saying, "They drew first blood". Did you forget the several embassy bombings? Or how about the Iran Hostages? Or how about Munich Olympics? How about the airliners and ocean liners they hijacked? DO I need to go on? Terrorism by muslims upon the free world has gone on a long tme, but as they got away with it, they got bolder and bolder. It was not really until Regan that the US started to stand up to them. Regime change? man you have listened to the left talking points to long.
Now forget the US, even if you want say thats why they attack us. Then whats their excuse for attacking all the other countries? They are not bombing them. Kind of ruins your argument
And yes, if China was doing this to our country you damm well better believe we will bomb them. Its called defending ourselves. Didnt you defend yourself back in school from the bullies that picked on you? Dont deny it, we know you were picked on. I was a bully back in school, not my proudest moments, and you would have been someone we picked on"Saudi Arabia? Really? Sorry, but Isalm has inspired the attacks upon the US and all other countries. Before you have a cow note what I said INSPIRED. I did not say Islam alone was responsible for the attack"
If you'll notice, I used sarcasm to make the argument that Suadi Arabia did NOT attack us.
Intriguing, this "sar-ca-sum".
Islam can't do anything - only individuals act. And obviously, something pissed those individuals off enough to KILL THEMSELVES in order to attack the US.
It wasn't Islam. Any one who thinks that Islam inspired these attacks is simply mistaken. Us bombing the crap out of Muslim countries for 50+ years was the inspiration.You truly need to remove the blinders, and you had the cow anyway. I knew you would. EVEN A MUSLIM ADMIT" ISLAM INSPIRED THE ATTACKS, BUT WE CONDEMM THOSE THAT DID IT. ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE. DO NOT JUDGE OUR BELIEFS BASED ON A FEW." He then goes on to tell how its based on peace.
The words came from a speech delivered at a prayer breakfast at the Whitehouse.
You did not use sarcasim, you meant it. But thats what the left does, deny they said it even if the evidence is there they did , then its everyones elses fault or a conspiracy. Why not just watch what you say so you do not have to try and explain it away. Oh you cannot for that would mean admitting you were wrong. Oh the horror of that...... Now thats sarcasimYou misspelled sarcasm, and you called me a lefty.
That's, like, strike 15.
My argument was that individuals performed the act, not a religion. The quote that you provided completely backed up what I had to say. The individual talking WAS MUSLIM and he said that he was against the attacks --- that means that the religion didn't do jacksh!t, the individuals did.
So that's strike 16, AND you gave me a home run.
Wanna just call it?Wrong again.....Game, set, match for me.
Thanks for correcting my spelling(people in glass houses. We could correct yours but that would be a childish response) as you have for others when you know you are wrong and are about to spew useless stuff. I think I speak fro everyone here, we bow to you as the spelling champ of Hubpages.
Interesting that such a good speller cannot read. Here is what I said
"Sorry, but Isalm has inspired the attacks upon the US and all other countries. Before you have a cow note what I said INSPIRED. I did not say Islam alone was responsible for the attack" Whagt part of inspired do you not understand. Even the Cleric said "ISLAM INSPIRED THE ATTACKS"
THat means religon didm have a part in it, despite you not understanding.
I did call it You are wrong again.Islam didn't inspire the attacks - remember how I already said that?
The fact that we're murdering people's children inspired the attacks.
Remember when I said that?
Yeah. I do.You didn't even read my post... so do not sit there slinging the BS. Israel was not stolen it was puchased and you wouldf know that had you read the links.... but back to the blah blah blah...
You are boring me now Evan... you are very repetative you know... America is evil, America suck, America kills children and they hate America for good reason... blah blah blah.
So much hate.
And that BS above is all part of the game to use the American Left... and they are useing the American Left and the Leftist idiots are falling for it.Who's boring? Who's repetitive?
Man, there's a bunch of black kettles and pots in this forum.Your words,
"Islam didn't inspire the attacks - remember how I already said that?"
Yes you did numreous times. so who is reptitive?
Evan,
I know for some reason you have a high opinion of yourself, guess you should cause noone else here does.
But just because you say something and no matter haow many times you say it, it does not make it so. In fact it usuall ymeans its notIs that the best you got?
I clearly illustrated how your argument that "Islam inspired the attacks" is nonsense.
Islam didn't inspire it, our murdering their children inspired it.Best I got, Really evan. This is not about what I got. Its about facts you clearly ignore
So you are Wrong again, nothing new there
First blood? Screw that.
No one has attacked me, and I haven't attacked anyone else. Millions of Americans feel the same way.
MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS FEEL THE SAME WAY --- then a fucking bomb goes off in their backyard and kills their daughter. They look up and see a Drone Plane flying off.
What the hell do you expect them to think? "Oh well, ***WE*** attacked ***THEM*** first!!! I guess it's OK that MY DAUGHTER IS FUCKING DEAD"
Grow up, dude. No single Islamic person has ever given me a reason to hate them, and I'm pissed off that my tax money is being spent killing them."Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden, states that terrorist attacks-specifically Al Qaeda attacks on America-are not motivated by a religiously-inspired hatred of American culture or religion, but by the belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[14] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorismIf ANYONE thinks that "I'm a religious guy, so I'll kill a bunch of people" could be true for millions of people, they are simply stupid.
Thanks for backing me up.Evan, I'll always back you or anybody else that I feel is right.
I'm reading Carpet Wars at the moment, I shan't quote from it, there are just too many Muslims asking why the US is bombing them, killing their wives and children to pick one over another.John,
Thanks for sending the link. I have read it and it clearly backs what I have been saying. You only took one quote from the whole presentation to try and push your agenda. You left out a lot.
So here is what was a few sentences from the quote you used:
“However, Martin Kramer who debated Pape on origins of suicide bombing, countered Pape's position that the motivation for suicide attacks is not just strategic logic but also an interpretation of Islam to provide a moral logic. For example, Hezbollah initiated suicide bombings after a complex reworking of the concept of martyrdom. Kramer explains that the Israeli occupation of Lebanon raised the temperature necessary for this reinterpretation of Islam, but occupation alone would not have been sufficient for suicide terrorism.” An interpretation of Islam enough said
Next Here is the first sentence from your article
“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2011)
NEXT here is the next paragraph
“Islamic terrorism has been identified as taking place in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, and the United States since the 1970s. One of the most well-known militant organizations is Al-Qaeda, which was founded by Osama bin Laden for the stated goals of ending American military presence in the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula,[1][2] overthrowing Arab regimes he considers corrupt and insufficiently religious” Insufficiently religious, what could I add to that
Next
“Islam has had an essentially political character ... from its very foundation ... to the present day. An intimate association between religion and politics, between power and cult, marks a principal distinction between Islam and other religions. ... In traditional Islam and therefore also in resurgent fundamentalist Islam, God is the sole source of sovereignty. God is the head of the state. The state is God's state. The army is God's army. The treasury is God's treasury, and the enemy, of course, is God's enemy.” Since politically they do not like American policy, that makes Americans Gods enemy. So they do attack in Gods name therfore using religion as there reason for attack.
Well there are more examples but I think this shows my point. Islam inspired terrorists to attack, but again I say inspired and nowhere have I said that’s the only reason.And... Al'Azar university and Cairo set forth a ruling which states in part that a Suicide bomber is not commiting suicide, as much as they are committing an act of marrtydom.
They state that having no other way to stand and fight against the enemy, the Muslim is allowed to use his body as a weapon, and in that act he is accomplishing the aims of allah and taking the jihad to the enemy for the glory god--, and that is from the mounths of the Scholars an Jurists of Islam.
Here is Quaradawi speaking om it...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/qarad … he-pe.html
And here is one such ruling...
The leading figure among the Lebanese Shiite community, Sayyid
Muhammad Hussayn Fadlallah, initially denied that he supported these attacks, but eventually gave them his endorsement. He stated,
"Sometimes you may find some situations where you have to take risks. When reality requires a shock, delivered with violence, so you can call upon all those things buried within, and expand all the horizons around you – as, for example, in the self-martyrdom operations, which some called suicide operations."
Fadlallah described the attacks as the ‘‘answer of the weak and oppressed to the powerful aggressors’’. He argued that in the absence of any other alternative, unconventional methods became admissible, and perhaps even necessary:
"If an oppressed people does not have the means to confront the United States and Israel with the weapons in which they are superior, then they possess unfamiliar weapons … Oppression makes the oppressed discover new weapons and new strength every day … They must thus fight with special means of their own. [We] recognize the right of nations to use every unconventional method to fight these aggressor nations, and do not regard what oppressed Muslims of the world do with primitive and unconventionalm means to confront aggressor powers as terrorism. We view this as religiously lawful warfare against the world’s imperialist and domineering powers."
For Fadlallah there is no difference between setting out for battle knowing you will die after killing ten of the enemy, and setting out to the field to kill ten and knowing you will die while killing them.
But don't take their own words on it...By the way, carpet Wars is about the carpet business. A man traveling the world seling his goods. Holy crap. This was the best one yet
No flag talk in that book. I can really see the connection
The connection was to Evan's post about indiscriminate killing.
Actually, the writer is an Australian journalist reporting on the middle east at the time of the Afghan war, he just happened to like Persian rugs and collected them in a small way.
Still with your narrow grasp on reality I can understand your mistake.
Gotta agree with you there....even though Obama is doing it too. Have to agree.
Guess you did not live in America on 911? Based on your saying, we should not have attacked Japan for you were not attacked on Dec 7.
I knew many people that died at ground zero. I knew 2 on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. There are many more that continue to die, I will be one of them. But I have no remorse my life will be cut short. I serve my country in its time of need. Lets see you say we kill woman and children. What do you call the several thousands of people in the WTC buildings, On the planes that same day, On the plane in Lockerbie Scottland,on the train bombs in England The 7 July 2005 London bombings (referred to often as 7/7) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United Kingdom, targeting Londoners using the public transport system during the morning rush hour killing 96 injuring over 800,in Madrid Spain killing 191 and injuring over 1800, the Achille Lauro Terrorists killed US civilianLeon Klinghoffer and then threw his body overboard, Munich Olympics 11 atheletes killed, 1982 Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days, April 18 1983, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23 1983, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut, Dec. 12 1983, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80. April 12 1985, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82. Oct. 7 1985, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Islamic Jihad in Libya. Dec. 18 1985, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Islamic Jihad in Libya, April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9. April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Islamic Jihad of Libya bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds, Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Islamic Jihad of Libya formally admitted responsibility. 15 years later Libya (Aug. 2003) offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families, Feb. 26, 1995 New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement was confirmed, June 25 1996, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001. Aug. 7 1998, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large, well not any more.
Well I could go on, there is alot more. You have one thing with all those people. Berfore they were attacked of killed, None of them had been attacked before. How do you think they feel about that Now? So you say we kill woman and children, what is it they are doing? So you think millions of Americans feel the same way as you, then a bomb goes off killing one of their loved ones. I believe they say the same thing as me. Like I said, First Blood.
By the way, if the terrorist we not such cowards hiding behind woman and children, there would not be ant collateral damage. Maybe someday they will man up, but I will not hold my breath"BUT MOMMY!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
wake up, dude. ***WE'VE*** murdered well 3,000 of ***THEM*** over the past few decades.DUDE WAKE UP) THEY KILLED OVER 3000 IN ONE DAY ON 911. NAD THAT DOES NOT COUNT ALL THE BODIES GOING WAY BACK> WAR THAT THEY DECLARED ON US AND WE DEFEND OURSELVES FROM IS NOT MURDER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. In case you do not understand
MURDER [mur-der]
–noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation
Sounds like what they are doing. You really need to give up and go to bed. You need your restROFL!
OOOoooo, so if the Government says it's OK to kill someone, then it's NOT murder!!!
Phew, thanks for clearing that up! And here I thought that bombing all those people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya was murder!!
Phew! I guess it's just "killing the innocent at the behest of your government!"
PS- drop this "defense" crap. We've been over there bombing them since the end of WWII. In fact, at our behest, the UN ripped apart one of their countries.Really, show me where we bombed them before they attacked us in some way. IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!
I serve my country in its time of need.
What time of need? We haven't had to defend ourselves since the Civil War -- and even then it was the South doing the defending. Every war since the Civil War has been an offensive one.
You're not *serving* your country if you are just the pawns of false gods who don't want to fight their own battles. You're only serving special interests.
I know I'm gonna take a lot of flack for that one, but it's true. Not a single military individual is serving their country right now in the Middle East.
It's bad enough that my tax dollars are buying the bullets and bombs. If there ever is a draft, I'm moving to Canada.Really, you canoy help but to show your ignorance
What time of need? We haven't had to defend ourselves since the Civil War -- and even then it was the South doing the defending. Every war since the Civil War has been an offensive one"
What was Pearl Harbor? Enough said or thisw would be another book. You really need to think before you post such nonsencecanoy?
You never heard why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, did you?
It was because FDR instituted a naval blockade that was killing their people. FDR navigated the Pacific Navy to put a huge naval blockade -- an action that was considered an act of war, and still is -- to crush the Japanese economy.
SO, no, WWII was not defensive, it was offensive.
... but i guess that has NO application to today's situation in the middle east, now does it?
OH, and FDR knew ahead of time that we were going to be attacked on Pearl Harbor -- he knew the time and place -- and still let it happen.
So, no, The war against Japan was an offensive one.
OH - and FDR had secretly made agreements with the British to become involved in WWII before we were ever attacked (even though he couldn't declare war because he's a president). He knew of the Tripartite Treaty, and used it to indirectly declare war against the Germans by pissing off the Japanese.
So... no, FDR wanted war.
(I guess you shouldn't try to talk to a Japanese Major who lived in Japan for four years discussing WWII with the natives about how the war was started. They're still pissed off at us for that because not a single American knows this stuff).WOW another truther who just does not know history. You reall y need to go back to school. And they are pissed because they could not dominate us like they thought they could. We fought back instead of roll over like other countries they attacked. Canada, Japan, if you like them so much better as you claim you do, then as I said earlier to you when you said you would leave, go.Noone is stopping you, or is it you know you will not have the freedoms you have now.
So here is the FACTS of Pearl Harbor
"The attack on Pearl Harbor (called Hawaii Operation or Operation AI[6][7] by the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (Operation Z in planning)[8] and the Battle of Pearl Harbor[9]) was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan). The attack was intended as a preventive action in order to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with military actions the Empire of Japan was planning in Southeast Asia against overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States." HMMMMM, I did not see FDR anywhere in there do you?
NEXT
"The attack came as a profound shock to the American people and led directly to the American entry into World War II in both the Pacific and European theaters. The following day (December 8) the United States declared war on Japan. Domestic support for isolationism, which had been strong, disappeared. Clandestine support of Britain (for example the Neutrality Patrol) was replaced by active alliance. Subsequent operations by the U.S. prompted Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. on December 11, which was reciprocated by the U.S. the same day.
Despite numerous historical precedents for unannounced military action by Japan, the lack of any formal warning, particularly while negotiations were still apparently ongoing, led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy".
Remeber, Japan came to the US to negotiate that the US not enter WWII. So you can try and twist it, but no sale
NEXT
"The attack had several major aims. First, it intended to destroy important American fleet units, thereby preventing the Pacific Fleet from interfering with Japanese conquest of the Dutch East Indies and Malaya. Second, it was hoped to buy time for Japan to consolidate its position and increase its naval strength before shipbuilding authorized by the 1940 Vinson-Walsh Act erased any chance of victory.[31][32] Finally, it was meant to deliver a severe blow to American morale, one which would discourage Americans from committing to a war extending into the western Pacific Ocean and Dutch East Indies. To maximize the effect on morale, battleships were chosen as the main targets, since they were the prestige ships of any navy at the time. The overall intention was to enable Japan to conquer Southeast Asia without interference.[31]
Striking the Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor carried two distinct disadvantages: the targeted ships would be in very shallow water, so it would be relatively easy to salvage and possibly repair them; and most of the crews would survive the attack, since many would be on shore leave or would be rescued from the harbor. A further important disadvantage—this of timing, and known to the Japanese—was the absence from Pearl Harbor of all three of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers (Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga). Ironically, the IJN top command was so imbued with Admiral Mahan's "decisive battle" doctrine—especially that of destroying the maximum number of battleships—that, despite these concerns, Yamamoto decided to press ahead.
Japanese confidence in their ability to achieve a short, victorious war also meant other targets in the harbor, especially the navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, could safely be ignored, since—by their thinking—the war would be over before the influence of these facilities would be felt" Again I see no FDR there do you?
Please start getting the facts right, this is getting old
We already knew you were a coward. Why wait Since we are so bad Go now. What why not? you have nothing good to say. And you said you would run, so again why wait?
If "not killing innocents for no reason" is considered cowardice, then I guess I'm a huge f*cking coward.
Hell, I'll say it proudly!!
"I DON'T ENJOY KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!! I'M A COWARD!!! I ALSO DON'T DO WHATEVER MY GOVERNMENT TELLS ME!! I'M ALSO UNPATRIOTIC!!!"
I'm an unpatriotic coward. You got me.
The earliest date in your timeline is only 1982.
What about when we tore apart a sovereign nation in 1947-48?
What about the countless attempts to dethrone ELECTED officials in the Middle East since 1953?
What about all the arms we've sold to Israel that have been used to kill Muslims?
Anyway, here's a timeline outlining some of the things we've done over there to provoke the attacks that you claim are "the first attack".
... oh, and it's done by a group of Christians who, apparently, remembered "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself".
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p25s1-wome.htmlRead here....
The arab nations are to blame for what is occurring now.
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-c … sp#Whathap
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.htmlHow the hell could you use that as a source to argue that the Arabs are responsible when the post starts off with "The British pissed off a bunch of Arabs, and then the UN tore apart their country"?
That's pretty interesting.Evan
I could have started earlier, Want me too
Evan, this one is going to be fun,
I told you before you need to learn to read. Well since you did not listen, you did this to yourself
You said"What about when we tore apart a sovereign nation in 1947-48?"
Your own source says nothing about the US tearing a country apart. In fact our military was busy at the time. You link says this: 1947-48 UN votes to partition Palestine into two states. THe UN Evan not the US.
NEXT:"1956 Israel attacks Egypt for control of Suez Canal. Britain and France veto US-sponsored UN resolution calling for halt to military action. British forces attack Egypt. Guess we did this to Evan. I see others attacking but it says the US tried to halt military action
NEXT"1968 First major hijacking by Arab militants occurs on El Al flight from Rome to Tel Aviv, marking decades of hostage-takings, hijackings, and assassinations as a strategy by Arab militant groups." Yep this has US written all over it NOT. I do not know, but this sounds like first attack to me
NEXT" What about all the arms we've sold to Israel that have been used to kill Muslims? What about all the arms we sold to Muslim countries? and by the way we sold them more than we ever sold to Israel. Source_ Iran Contra hearings
Next 1972 Eight Arab commandos of Palestinian group Black September kill 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. Sounds like another first attack
NEXT "1973 Egypt and Syria attack Israel over its occupation of the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. US gives $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel" money, not troops, sounds like a first attack to me
Next "1979 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini leads grass-roots Islamic revolution in Iran, calling the US as "the great Satan." Iranian students storm US Embassy in Tehran, taking 66 Americans hostage for next 15 months. US imposes sanctions. Protesters attack US Embassies in Libya and Pakistan." THis really sounds like a first attack
Well I do not need to keep going, I have said these same things over and over again, but you do not listen Well Evan, this was you souce, the link You provided. Completly backing me and stating the facts I have been telling you. To u8se your words How the hell could you use a source to argue your points when it totally says all my points.Great post! I guess that ruins the lefties reasoning on us starting everything first.
If you actually go through history, you see the Muslims love war and blowing $hit up. But the wussy lefties can not see facts.Who the hell do you think got the UN started?
Who do you think the Security Council (who basically made all the decisions) was made out of?
Not a single Muslim voice had any say during the UN hearings.
Thus, it was an act of war, and you're just using the flag of the UN to cover your ass.Nice try, We did not form the UN alone we agreed to host it after the leauge of nations failed. The first meeting ofd the UN was in England
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
There are currently 192 member states, including every internationally recognised sovereign state in the world but the Vatican City"
That includes all the middleastrn countries. I gues you forgot that, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia among others have addressed the UN numerous times.
The US did not bomb Saudi Arabia because the Bushes are buddy buddy with the royal family.
Their hatred for us goes back 1490 years... straight to mohhammud and allah, the qu'ran and Haddth. And that is a historic fact! No matter how many Leftists and Progressives wish to deny it.
And the "us" is inclusive plural, so it is all Christians, Atheists, Homosexuals, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, and any who will not bow to their god and prophet.It's strange, however. You say "their" hatred for "us" ...
... I don't hate any Islamic people, nor do they hate me.
Only individuals can act.Spoken like a man who has never read the Qu'ran and Hadith and basses what he knows of Islam on rumors and what he is told by those who hate us.
The, "religion of peace and love" BS propaganda you people spew is a reflection of your lack of knowledge on Islam. Nothing more.
There were many Jews who thought the Germans were not so bad... George Soros the Left wing hero being one of them. You all know where Soros got his money... look here...
---Tuesday, October 26th, 2010 - 20:18:47----
Billionaire left-wing extremist George Soros betrayed the Jews, worked with the Nazis... has no regrets
Be prepared to be hit with revulsion. Soros betrayed other Jews and helped steal their property and send them to their tragic deaths to spare himself.
And he doesn’t feel any guilt about it. None.
This is the face of pure evil… and with whom the Democrat party has aligned itself
(Ezra Levant)- George Schwartz was born in Hungary in 1930 — not the luckiest time and place to be born a Jew.
George’s father Theodore tried to change the family’s fortunes by changing their name to something less Jewish-sounding. It didn’t help. And soon war came.
When the Nazis took total control of Hungary in 1944, the Holocaust followed. In two months, 440,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to death camps.
To survive, George, then a teenager collaborated with the Nazis.
First he worked for the Judenrat. That was the Jewish council set up by the Nazis to do their dirty work for them. Instead of the Nazis rounding up Jews every day for the trains, they delegated that murderous task to Jews who were willing to do it to survive another day at the expense of their neighbours.
Theodore hatched a better plan for his son. He bribed a non-Jewish official at the agriculture ministry to let George live with him. George helped the official confiscate property from Jews.
By collaborating with the Nazis, George survived the Holocaust. He turned on other Jews to spare himself.
George moved to London after the war and then to New York, where he became a stockbroker. He’s rich now. Forbes magazine says he’s the 35th richest man in the world. Maybe you’ve heard of him. He goes by the name his father invented: George Soros.
How does Soros feel about what he did as a teenager? Has it kept him up at night?
Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered.
“No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”
A Nazi would steal the Jews’ property anyways. So why not him?
That moral hollowness has shaped Soros’ life. He’s a rabid critic of capitalism, but in 1992 when he saw a chance, he speculated against the British pound, causing it to crash, devastating retirement savings for millions of Britons. Soros pocketed $1.1 billion for himself. If he didn’t do it, someone else would, right?
Last year, when he made $3.3 billion off the banking collapse, he called the world’s financial crisis “the culmination of my life’s work.”
Soros is a sociopath. But he’s a sociopath with $14 billion, and he likes to spend it on politics.
Sometimes his gifts are large, like the $24 million he spent in 2004, trying to defeat George W. Bush. Sometimes they’re small, like $20,000 to a woman convicted of helping terrorists.
Nice people the Leftists embrace into their fold. he is their Hero... and they talk about McCarthy. WOW! McCarthy never sold the flesh and blood of his people to the over-masters to gain what he could from them.Look at George Soros - wow Islam must really hate us!
No, I don't get the connection. I have a Muslim landlord and he definitely doesn't hate me, therefore your claim that the whole of Islam hates us does not hold up.If you read my post I didn't say he had anything to do with Islam. I used him as an example of how some go willingly and blindly along with evil, even to the point of slaughtering their own. And he is just one example of people blindly accepting and leading others, of their own, to their own deaths. never questioning or looking for the answers that may have saved their lives and the many they helped to slaughter. Simple.
Read... comprehend... and then speak.My reply was to Evan... not you, until you replied to my reply.
And he also wrong about only inidividuals being able to hate... many an ideology is based on hate, and can evoke hatred, by the hate embedded within it.
Simple enough.I can agree with your "many an ideology is based on hate" you demonstrate it perfectly. You hate Islam, the left and what else, all because you don't agree with them, and you share that trait with many others of the right.
I do not like certain Ideologies because of their policies and Philosophies... so get over yourself, man. And stop twisting everything, it shows you have no arguments to support your assertions.
No arguments! Unlike you of course who have plenty, lets see, hate lefties, hate Islam, hate progressives, hate everybody who doesn't share your world view and that's it.
How's your little flag episode as an example of twisting?I will say it again for you john. No religioous flags should be flown there...ONLY the AMERICAN FLAG!
Clear enough?
And I do not agree with "Seperation of Church and State" as it is interpreted now... but that is the law of the land and it applies all across the board.But earlier on you were claiming that the law prohibited the flying of flags before you posted proof that that wasn't the case.
Federal law Vs a county or municipal?
You are joking right. And my argument is and has been against the religious symbolism of it, not "flags" in general. And you know it.
That Flag is a religious symbol, it doesn't belong on state, county, municipal or federal, land. I do not agree with that, but that is the law. And I am an American... I do not have to prove it to myself. You can google, "Seperation of Church and State in America", easy enough.Oh lawks here we go again!
As you refuse to take any notice of what you post the first time round, what's the point of reiterating?
Why don't you bring down federal law on these people who are so blatantly ignoring it and flying religious flags on War Memorials?
And while you're at it, slap down the government bodies that approve the religious flags.Actually TMM, you're wrong.
The 1st amendment explicitly says that "CONGRESS shall make no law"
Thus, a religious flag CAN be on a municipal, city, state, whatever building. In fact, it can even be on a FEDERAL building unless Congress writes a law banning ALL religious symbols from federal buildings.
You fight against the separation of Church and State whenever the "victim" is Christian, but not when it's Muslim...
... hmmm....I know what the constitution says in Article 1, Evan... and I know how the Leftists and the Courts have interpreted it. That is why there is constantly some Atheist leftist in court suing over one symbol or another they do not want on ANY Govt property.
As regards the Courts view of religious symbolism on state land...
http://www.au-oc.org/
And that flag repesents Islam and only Islam.
And here is some more reading for you all... as regards Seperation...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … sions.htmlBut the Cross is permanent and preferential and therefore illegal.
religious symbolism, John. I directed you to court rulings read them. I have done all I can to help you understand the screwed up situation the Seperation clause has created as it is now interpreted John.
You could probrably get the Spreme Court rulings on it online bro... have at it and come to your own conclusions on it.
This one is simply a nativity scene, not permanent at all...
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_2050Well all I can say is I'm following what you posted, and you posted supported flying religious flags on public memorials, both by the city and by some veterans organisation.
The gist of the story that you first posted was not that they were doing anything illegal, but that they were flying a Muslim flag with no comment about them flying Christian or Buddhist or Jewish or atheist flags.
The legality of it only came in when you'd painted yourself well into a corner.
EVAN
You are partly right but 99 % wrong
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. Source WIKIPEDIAOh come on. As a crazy conservative, you must agree that the Judges are legislating from the bench.
That 1947 ruling was an amendment to the Constitution from the bench.
Nonsense on stilts.
Evan
Wrong again, do you not get tired of being wrong?
I am an independent, not belonging to any party. I am ashamed to say I voted for O-man, Man was I fooled, but not again.
I do have to say that some Judges do indeed let their views interfere with how they rule. But thats why we have appeals courts to govern themelves
THis law went to the top and was upheld. So their was no bias in its intent.
Seperation of church and state exists and needs to be followedI think your habit of replying to my posts, but addressing your reply to Evan just about sums up your grasp of matters political, ie,not very good.
And can I actually remind you of the title of this topic?
"Slap in the Face of America ~Muslim Flag to fly on 911 in N.Carolina".
Not a peep about not flying any religious flags on government property.
John,
I always address who I am answering, I guess you cannot read that part. I stayed on topic the whole time and answered the false twists you all put on the subject. Speaking of staying on topic did you not post this and supply a link to which I answered you. Who was not on topic? To steal what you said "Not a peep about not flying any religious flags on government property"
"Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden, states that terrorist attacks-specifically Al Qaeda attacks on America-are not motivated by a religiously-inspired hatred of American culture or religion, but by the belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[14] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are.""
WAS THAT NOT YOUIt is the way AV. You do not agree with them you are an evil, racist, hate-filled, bigot, who has no type of understanding and intellect.
Have you replied at all to all the anti-Semitic and hate-filled passages that I linked about the Christian bible?
No.
Have you posted numerous quotes from the Koran citing hatred and anti-Semitic references?
Yes.
...
...
what conclusion do you expect people to draw when you turn a blind eye to one religion while attacking another for the same issue?There is no Anti-Semitism in the New Testament, which is my Bible. The Old Testament is a history, foundation and confirmation of Christ and his coming. Not what I follow as law. Christ gave me two commandments to follow and they encompuss all the commandments of old. Love all as I have loved you, and love no other above the Lord your God.
Get it.
Not lay down and let people kill you because you won't worship their god.Oops, got ya!
http://www.messiahtruth.com/anti.html
... why'd you post a quote that agrees with me and goes against what you said earlier?
Erm, are yousure that you always answer the post you thnk you're answering?
"John Holden wrote:
No arguments! Unlike you of course who have plenty, lets see, hate lefties, hate Islam, hate progressives, hate everybody who doesn't share your world view and that's it.
How's your little flag episode as an example of twisting?
AV answered:
EVAN
You are partly right but 99 % wrong
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however separation of church and state was not considered part of the constitution; indeed in 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to guarantee separation of church and state, a task to be accomplished not by constitutional amendment but by judicial fiat in 1947. Source WIKIPEDIA"
You're right, TMM.
Everyone hates us because they read a book.
Man, do I feel dumb.
I saw a Muslim guy the other day, and I just KNEW that he had read a book and hated me because of it. That jerk LOOKED like he was buying some vegetables from Wal-Mart, but I knew that he REALLY hated me...
... because of a book...
That man had in his basket a weapon. Bleach. He could have easily pushed me down and made me drink it. I knew that he WANTED to do that ---- because, apparently, I KNEW that he had read a book --- and was just waiting for the right time.
... because he read a book...
Man. Do I feel stupid.
Also, because of the fact that a flag was flying on a building some thousands of miles away from Ground Zero, I knew that the man at Wal-Mart was thinking "MWAHAHAHAHAHAH WE WON!!! THAT WHITE BASTARD WHO SHOPS AT WAL-MART IS A FOOL!!!"
... because he read a book ...
Man. Do I feel stupid.Remeber this keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. Our enemies are better than that than we are. We back leaders, groups, we supply them intel, weapons, mteach the tatics, then they show thier true colors and turn on us. But that was the plan from the start. Things are not so cut and dry as you want to believe they are.
Remember this Richard Reed shopped at Walmart before he tried to blow up a plane. So did the Pilots of the 911 jets that lived in Florida. We even taught them to fly the damm planes. They kept us close. Want more examples, there are alot moreISLAMIC PEOPLE ARE NOT MY ENEMY.
This "we vs. them" crap has got to be flushed.
Only individuals act.We already know you are not a patriot, so it does not suprise me you do not understand the terms "we" "them" You are only about I, same problem the left has in congress. I me I me I me, thats all you know, gimme , gimme, gimme
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Enjoy using "I'm more obedient to my false deity" as your argument for butchering innocents in foreign countries.Oh, and I have no qualms with "being all about myself".
I'll never pull a trigger against my fellow man unless he is directly threatening me or my property.
However, those who think they're part of some collective... well, they convince themselves that they're doing the work of a higher power by killing others.
Wait... convincing one's self that you're working for a higher power by killing others...
... is that the US Armed Forces?
... or is it "the Terrorists"?That would be ISLAM!!!
"The Prophet said… The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him… (Emphasis mine) 23"
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/F … _mahdi.htm"Stand in silence in the presence of the Sovereign LORD, for the awesome day of the LORD's judgment has come. The LORD has prepared his people for a great slaughter and has chosen their executioners. "On that day of judgment," says the LORD, "I will punish the leaders and princes of Judah and all those following pagan customs. Yes, I will punish those who participate in pagan worship ceremonies, and those who steal and kill to fill their masters' homes with loot.
(Zephaniah 1:7:18 NLT)
Oops, looks like the Bible enjoys killing Jews as well."When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)"
Oops, look at that - God wants us to kill 7 NATIONS." You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all."
(Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)
Ooops, I guess god wants us to SHOW NO MERCY to those that "[our] God hands over to [us]"!!WOW,
Good thing I do not believe in God, so all the previous crap Evan wrote means nothing. Well it means nothing even if you do believe in God
Evan. you need to change your meds
Pull a trigger, you would not even hold a gun, run to Canada, your words not mine
I serfiously doubt you have a gun. PROTECTION, now there is a word you have no clue about. If you did you would realize thats what the Uited States has done in history, PROTECT
Your calling me a liar?
Here it is:
I bet you'll just say "that's not yours!! I wanna see you holding it" or other crap like that.
The same way Obama's Birth Certificate probably wasn't real (in your mind).
I've never heard of a "Muslim flag." That's about as nonsensical as their being a "Jewish race."
Religions are not races of people, and religions don't have flags.Yes Islam has a flag, two to be exact. The black flag of Islam with a prayer to allah across it, is flown at times of war. Then there is the flag of allah, or the Caliph, how ever you wish to refer to it, and it is white with an arabic prayer across it.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/isl-khil.html
So reconsider your assumptions on that flag.Islam religion has no flags, nor any holy symbols or pictures. There are people or places where some symbols are shown as Islamic symbols but in fact none of the Muslims would worship those in a Mosque and most of these symbols would be just Arabic words, written Allah or prophet Mohamed in a nice way.
There are and were flags for Islamic states, countries, or community groups and which may or may not change time to time. But none of them represents Islamic religion but an entity (group, community etc)
It is silly that you just did a google search and copy paste a link which you thought is good for your arguments. Interestingly you ignored the first link from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_flags) which clearly says "The early Muslim community did not use any designs or geometric shapes as symbols on their flags. During the time of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, Muslim armies and caravans flew simple solid-coloured flags (generally black or white) for identification purposes".
Here anyone can clearly see that, in wikipedia, it says "community" and "for identification purpose". Whilst I agree wikipedia is an open platform and cannot be considered 100% authentic, can be considered as a good reference compare to your source. In your link also it states that "falg of Khilafah (state)"
Anyone can give millions of such links, just suffix a word with "flag" and try a google search.The black and white flags of Islam are a fact. Come slinging that BS. Please!
What do think is being reffered to here...
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0703/19.html
And what do you call those they are carrying?..
Please!
And looky here...
Looking at this picture I just posted...
... what a tragic outcome. That lady has to stand out in the cold draping herself in an American flag just to convince people like American View and TMMason NOT to throw them all in jail.First look at the picture, she is wearing a coat not wrapped in the falg. You cannot even get a picture right. As for the rest of what you wrote again you are wrong. just utter nonsense you keep saying.
I mean I post on every thread throw them in jail. You really need to stop making things up to cover you are wrong or if you really see it that way, make an appointment, you need new glasses"First look at the picture, she is wearing a coat not wrapped in the falg. You cannot even get a picture right."
ROFL -- y'got me! You are too observant for me!You know it, but its typical of just saying or making things up.
OK then, what about these....
I can even pull different colors of flags from google..those are not representing Islam but a group of some people...
And I also found a BS flag from google
Those are the Palestinian flags.
Dude, just cause a country, (or an imaginary country in Palestines case), has a flag, doesn't mean your religion doesn't. Yes Islamic nations use solid colors, that does not mean your religion has no flag... duh!
So sling that BS somewhere else.
You know exactly what the black flag of Islam is and represents. Sling the tiqayya and kithman BS at someone who doesn't know Islam for what it is.Now I know exactly one thing;
not that "what the black flag of Islam is and represents" (as there is no such thing)
but what you are trying to do and establish here...your earlier forum posts also clearly shows that, hence go ahead with those 'BS'See ya... you been busted.
And you can deny your flag and your religion and your prophet... and all else, as long as it advance Islam into the Dar Al'Harb.
I see you... and I know what your doing.
And yes you do... you see me pointing at you.
You come in and the first thing you do is lie... that is classic tiqayya.Looky Looky here... from the mouths of Muslims themselves... the Black Flag of Islam... the "Flag of the Mahdi"
The Army Of Black Flags
The Mahdi’s ascendancy to power is said to be preceded by an army from the east who will be carrying black flags or banners of war. Sheikh Kabbani states:
Hadith indicate that black flags coming from the area of Khorasan will signify the appearance of the Mahdi is nigh. Khorasan is in todays Iran, and some scholars have said that this hadith means when the black flags appear from Central Asia, i.e. in the direction of Khorasan, then the appearance of the Mahdi is imminent. 17
Another tradition states that:
The Messenger of Allah said: The black banners will come from the East and their hearts will be as firm as iron. Whoever hears of them should join them and give allegiance, even if it means crawling across snow. 18
In Islam there are two flags. One is white and one is black. Written across both flags in Arabic are the words, “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger”. The white flag is called Al-Liwaa and serves as the sign for the leader of the Muslim army and is the flag of the Islamic State. The black flag is called Ar-Raya and is used by the Muslim army. It is also called the flag of jihad, and is carried into battle. One flag is governmental and the other is a military flag. 19 When Muhammad returned to his home city of Mecca after being exiled for eight years, he returned as a conqueror. With him were ten thousand Muslim soldiers. They carried with them black flags. On the flags was one word written in Arabic: punishment. 20
I was once talking to a group of young Muslim men and asking them some questions. I asked them if the obvious superior militaries of America and Israel compared to the militaries of any Islamic nations were a source of difficulty for many Muslims. One of these men then became very angry at my question and snapped out, “You Americans and Zionists better get ready, because the black flags are coming!” At the time, I had no idea what he was talking about. Later I learned the meaning.
The Conquering Of Israel
Islamic tradition pictures the Mahdi as joining with the army of Muslim warriors carrying black flags. The Mahdi will then lead this army to Israel and re-conquer it for Islam. The Jews will be slaughtered until very few remain and Jerusalem will become the location of the Mahdi’s rule over the Earth.
Rasulullah [Muhammad] said: "Armies carrying black flags will come from Khurasan. No power will be able to stop them and they will finally reach Eela (Baitul Maqdas in Jerusalem) where they will erect their flags." 21
It is important to note here the reference above to “Baitul Maqdas”. In Arabic this means “the holy house”. This is referring to the Dome of the Rock Mosque and is located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
In a particularly venomous manner, Egyptian authors, Muhammad ibn Izzat and Muhammd ‘Arif comment on the above tradition:
The Mahdi will be victorious and eradicate those pigs and dogs and the idols of this time so that there will once more be a caliphate based on prophethood as the hadith states… Jerusalem will be the location of the rightly guided caliphate and the center of Islamic rule, which will be headed by Imam al-Mahdi… That will abolish the leadership of the Jews… and put an end to the domination of the Satans who spit evil into people and cause corruption in the earth, making them slaves of false idols and ruling the world by laws other than the Shari’a [Islamic Law] of the Lord of the worlds. (Emphasis mine) 22
There is a very famous tradition that is often quoted throughout the Islamic world that speaks of the Mahdi’s military campaign against Israel. The tradition is both sickening and very sobering:
The Prophet said… The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him… (Emphasis mine) 23
The Miraculous Provider Who Will Be Loved By All
It is said that the Mahdi will have control over the wind and the rain and the crops. Under the Mahdi’s rule, the world will live in prosperity. Islamic tradition relates that Muhammad once said:
In the last days of my Ummah [universal Islamic community], the Mahdi will appear. Allah will give him power over the wind and the rain and the earth will bring forth its foliage. He will give away wealth profusely, flocks will be in abundance, and the Ummah will be large and honored… 24
In those years my community will enjoy a time of happiness such as they have never experienced before. Heaven will send rain upon them in torrents, the earth will not withhold any of its plants, and wealth will be available to all. A man will stand and say, “Give to me Mahdi!” and he will say, “Take.” 25
As a result of the numerous benefits that the Mahdi brings, it is said that all the inhabitants of the Earth will be possessed with a deep love of him:
Allah will sow love of him in the hearts of all people. 26
Al Mahdi appears, everyone only talks about Him, drinks the love of Him, and never talks about anything other than Him. 27
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/F … _mahdi.htm
Slapped down! long live the USA!!! AND ISRAEL!!!!And note that verse people... straight fromthe Hadith!!! So too bad!
"The Prophet said… The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him… (Emphasis mine) 23"
Slapped down!! LONG LIVE ISRAEL AND AMERICA""If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
Ooops, look at that! It looks like TMMason is just following what the Bible tells him! He wants to kill those that are of a different faith and who worship a different god!""When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
I guess... God enjoys us beating slaves half to death?And does the Bible not talk of God killing his followers, burn them and more?
Oh, look at that: The Christian Bible has anti-semitic passages as well.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/anti-semitism.html
Who'dathunkit?
Wes,
Actually, they do. In fact all religions do
Yet another bone of contention for people to pick up on...maybe they should just not fly any flags and let the whole flag thing go...I don't think the people who died at that spot on 9/11 would care.
Just fly our countries flag, During their lives they did care. so honor them properly. The rest of this is just garbage
Good point. Actually, I think you would find many if not most of the dead shocked right out of the grave to find some new-fangled Christian flag flying over them instead of the flag of the country they gave their life for.
We have some friends that have this really stupid little dog, it's like half shitzoo and half toy poodle. It's got these little black marbles for eyes, and its got an underbite that is hystical, a crooked row of bottom teeth jut out absurdly. It's a little ball of cream colored fluff that even our smallest cat could kick the crap out of.
What's funny about it (and why your post reminds me of it), is that what people like doing to this little dog most is moving a foot towards it, especially a bare foot. For whatever reason, it hates that. So if you wiggle your toes at it, it goes into this growling, snarling little frenzy, a tiny rumble of ferocity rattling beneath its toothpick ribs and soft, pampered fluff. Everyone howls with laughter as this thing takes the presentation of those wrigglign toes as some terrible threat, and it makes a rumbly little joke of itself to the amusement of everyone, most of all, whoever it was whose toes were being taken so seriously.
That is what you are doing. It's what you do every time some moron wriggles the toes of some flag at you from some distant, meaningless corner of nowhere. You stick out your little, crooked row of outraged teeth and treat it like something important is happening. It's not. There's no threat. It's just a piece of cloth attached to a pole. And they are making you look foolish.Superb Shadesbreath. I take off my hat to you, yet again. And I want to play the toe game with the dog.
If I could momentarily divert from the serious topic of this thread I did have similar incident with a dog I didn't really know the other day.
I was playing "get my foot" by waving my shoe in it's face and it was growling in a play way - when all of a sudden it grabbed my entire foot. I was momentairly struck by fear, followed by stupidity.
Fortunately it let go.
You're right about that, Shades.
A flag is just a piece of cloth. There's no threat to flying any kind of flag anywhere. But it does seem to send some people a message of some kind, that's why I think, hey, let it go.
I think it's really mean of people to tease the dog.A flag represents alot more than a piece of cloth.
That is an absurd argument. Sounds like the BS the American flag burners scream. Oh no it represents something to them, also.
It is a symbol of a Nation or religion, and as such it does stand for something. And to say other-wise is absurdly lost as to the understanding of the situation. Alot of people died for/under the American flag. And as such it stands for their sacrafices, as well as symbolizes America and what we stand for. Same with all other flags.
Yes America continue to ignore the obvious. The Homosexuals, Atheists and immoral Lean Leftists, will be the first to be beheaded under Islamic Sharia, or convert.
And then all the rest of us will have to stand up, grab our guns and pray to our God, and clean up the mess you all allowed.
What would ever make you all on the Left think Islam would accept half the immorallity and Atheism we Americans do?
They will not, can not! It is Al'Sharia derived straight form the qu'ran and Hadith, it is their god's law. They will not set it aside in the name of cultural diversity... if you think they will, take a look at Saudi Arabia.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-uni … mic-state/Thank God (or whatever) you continue to spare the fat leftists from your wrath.
On the plus side the Saudis don't let women drive, so that's not all bad. Obviously beheading them is a bit wrong, I suppose, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
At least they can get stoned if they want, or even if they don't want.
Not sure if I have an argument here - just assume I am against everything so far. Other than that - great flag thread.Grow up psycho. Sharia isn't coming to the US. You are an example that we might want to have some kind of test before we let people breed.
Tex,
Hate to say it is here in several communites, TMM even showed where they are going to build a community that has to follow Sharia law. Now I am not saying the US will turn in to it, but it is here in a small way
This bit, at least, has some truth. Certainly not a diversity-friendly ideology. Pretty much the definition of intolerance.
Did I miss the post that explains how Islam, which is a tiny minority in America, seven-tenths of one percent, is going to take over?
We will ignore that the vast majority of Muslims in America are moderate advocates of religous tolerance.They are going to enlist the underpants gnomes.
I missed it too Doug. Paranoia running rampid
OVERVIEW Muslim social scientists and researchers have spent a great deal of time trying to determine the number of Muslims in the United States. Most accept the estimate of from 5 million to 8 million. That is to say at least 5 million people in North America claim Islam as their religion and/or practice. What is represented in this report is based on estimates made in 1991, the World Almanac reports that Muslim in the United States number approximately 5,220,00. The total worldwide Muslim population is generally estimated at slightly more that 1 billion. David Barrett's publication, "International Bulletin of Missionary Research" cites a lower figure, 988,004,000.
An exact figure of Muslim population in the United States is very difficult to make. The figures presented here are based on available data.
In the United States, there are essentially three categories of Muslims: 1) immigrants; 2) American converts/reverts to Islam; and 3) those born to the first two groups as Muslims.
The immigrant population of the United States is relatively easy to document because the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Census Bureau, and other government agencies have been keeping records of immigrants. In order to arrive at our figures, we researched the history of Muslim ethnic groups around the world and then determined their percentage as Muslim. We then correlated this percentage with the number of Muslims in the United States, which enabled us to determine the percentage represented in the overall population.
Determining the number of indigenous Muslims was more difficult. In most cases, records have not been kept by any single source. To arrive at the number of American converts to Islam, we had to look at various groups' conversion rates and compare them against their mortality and fertility rates.
This is an on-going project, and AMC will keep the reader informed of new statistics through our quarterly publication, the AMC Report. The figures cited here represent a starting point for serious research on demographic data about the Muslim population of the United States.
You ignore the obvious reality that the lettuss pickers are way ahead of the Moslems in their quest to conquor Amerka.
Catholic law is the awful reality that awaits us all.
Your right about the Leant Leftist Socialist Democrats and thieir Progressive brethren having betrayed us. And yes they are way ahead of Islam, but no where as violent and determined as the Muslims and thier allah.
And I am well aware of the fasetious nature of your comment. But I figured I would use it as a launch pad to make sure others knew the truth.So, I am curious...you tend to throw all the things you don't like into one category. If leftists would be the first to be killed by Islamists, then why would you link Islamists and leftists? Leftists aren't Islamic typically. Do you want to put underpants gnomes in there too? They always steal your socks and underwear from the dryer. Damn underpants gnomes.
Hey Tex if you catch him. Hold him. I want all my clothes back, I will even waterboard him to make him talk...... LOL
I will add "fasetious" to the list of TMisms. It's no "leant leftists", but it's still pretty good.
He says he's learned how to do contractions. That's progress.
TM, allow me to refer you to the thread vis "Freedom of Expression"
you know, the one where you are defending the right of somebody to do harm to another human being because she reputedly did something that does not meet with your approval.My defense is of the Right to speak feely, John. Please do not obfuscate my position. You are alot smarter than that and I know it.
So, right to speak freely but no freedom of expression, right.
The defense is of the right of the right to speak freely.
You don't (want to) grant the right of free speech to groups you disagree with.That would be a shocking concept indeed. Why, you might even end up with groups large enough or strong enough to have their own way of life different than what you wish it to be! Intolerable!
Basically, he just said he can lie because, well, he can....and he does.
- klarawieckposted 12 years ago0
Yet, Americans get arrested for dancing at the Jefferson Memorial.
Not quite. They were arrested for demonstrating without a permit, which they knew. They also refused to disperse when ordered to do so, which they were not charged with although they could have been.
Oh, I see... so it's okay to wave the muslim flag over this other memorial then. They applied and bought the permit. Perfect sense!
Now, I understand that it's not the muslim faith we should chastise. There are some muslims that are against terrorism. But the dust must settle into place before anyone tries to put things into perspective. The terrorist attacks of Sept 11 are still too recent for anyone to test the legacy of religious freedom that the US has always advertised. It's like sticking your finger in an open wound to see if it's healing or not.The US either has freedom of religion or not...
You have all been reduced once again to personal insults.
Shows just how much you all truely know, or do not. lolllll
Your welcome. Come back again some time and I will reduce you all to personal insults once more.Thank you for proving my assertion, Doug. Now you can go back to your McCarthy thread.
He deserves those insults Doug, because he never owns up the lies he posts, when they get thrown back in his face. This is just a forum on the internet, some random place...but in real life, this guy actually believes these psychotic rants, and has raised children to probably believe in them...that brings shame to this country, breeds shame and ignorance into further generations.
The mistake was to even start flying *any* religious flags at that time and place.
The families of various faith-and-non-faith victims might feel the same about the Christian flag. I see them as all equally inappropriate.
Memorials for tragedies are not a place for agendas other than compassion and remembrance.Since there are muslim veterans in those graves who have fought for America why shouldn't they allow a rotation of Muslim as well as different religions, rather than just Christian.
Agree that it should probably just be the American flag flying though.I thought because Church and State were separated it meant basically you could fly a flag of Mickey Mouse if you wanted on any day ,any week of any year.
Freedom of religion and all that
The beauties of the county that were fought for, the freedoms that our boys today and in the past have died for are freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, and the biggie in this instance, freedom of religion.......like it or not its their right.
AW,
No one is denying the freedom. They just need to follow the lawReally, that was so stupid it does not merit an response. You really need to get educated
Sorry I should have read more carefully, I didnt know it was on state property, I thought they were just flying it as a statement. Ill read slower next time. I somewhat regret opening this can of worms on my notifications haha im getting like 2 every minute.
AW,
THats Ok we all learn from these threads. Thats why I like them so much. You did the honorable thing by saying you made a mistake. Good for you. Maybe others can learn from you example
It seems to me that the OP is entirely correct. In addition:
Easter is not appropriate either - this is a celebration of a Christian holiday and muslim flags should not be flown during that week.
Memorial day should be banned - as most American dead are Christian we certainly don't need a muslim flag over them that week.
July 4 is reserved for the start of the US - as there were no muslim signatures on the Declaration of Independence we don't need the muslim flag being flown that week.
Labor day is about American workers - as muslims were not represented during the early formation of unions we certainly don't want a muslim flag during that week.
Presidents day celebrates only American presidents. As there have been no Muslim presidents there should be no Muslim flag allowed that week.
Thanksgiving is about groups of atheists and Christians getting together for a feast. Muslims weren't there and thus do not need to fly a flag that week.
Christmas is absolutely reserved for Christians only and we cannot allow a muslim flag to be flown that week.
The rest of the weeks can reasonably be lumped together as a great celebration of the Christian crusades of rape and pillage, the Inquisition and those exciting days of witch burning - Muslims were represented only on the receiving end of these glorious activities and should not be allowed to fly a flag during those weeks. Besides, we are 100% a Christian nation - other religions need not apply.
Is it possible that we should simply fly an American flag honoring our fallen Americans? Just leave out these ridiculous religious requirements and actually work at being a nation of Americans? Is it possible that we can put aside our bigotry, stop actively searching for reasons to be offended when no offense is offered and put those efforts into living together as Americans?
Probably not.
Another that misses the point.
I have said over and over, yes they are always a small percentage of people within a- community or populace, race, religion, etc, -that are adverse to violence simply because that is how they are, it is their nature. So yes I know some very nice and honest Muslims.
But they will tell you that a great majority of Muslims adhere to the strict doctrines of Islam as passed to them by Mohhamud -ie; allah, and the Islamic Scholars and jurists.- The Muslims I know will not lie and say Islam is a religion of peace, they will tell you Islam is a religion of war and conquering in the name of allah and momo. The honesty I mentioned. I bet your friends will not even admit that Islam is a militant religion... that speaks volumes.
As to the rest of my point... it is in reference to those who are blindly led along by those that think, "someone cannot be that bad". And how that blind idiocy has affected more than one people in the world's history. So to take someone's word on something, when the greater majority, -as in NAZI Germany and Islam,- are bent on slaughter and conquest, is retarded and a detriment to the good and survival of the whole of a society.
Pretty simple Evan.
Read the Qu'ran, Sunnah and Hadith, then grasp the FACT that Muslims, regardless of what I think about many in general, are some of the most devout people in the world and take every word of the Qu'ran and Hadith, and every action of Mohhammud (becausee he is considered the perfect example of how a man should act), as LAW!
And to violate those laws is punishable by death in this world and condemnation in the next.
Simple cooncept Evan.
I know Muslims who will tell you right out front that Islam as it is today can never be peaceful to the world... and that Islam as it stands today needs to under-go an, "Enlightenment", so to speak. Untill then Islam is in the bussiness of conquering nations and people for the propagation of Islam and the Ummah. And they are telling me the truth.
How about your, "friends"?But, TMM, there used to be a hubber that must have insisted 10,000 times that Islam was a religion of Peace. Why do you not believe?
Actually, there is much truth in what you say here. However, it seems to me that Islam is already undergoing the "enlightenment" that you mention, just as Christianity did some time ago.
It is almost as if there are two Islamic religions - one that primarily exists in the civilized world and another in the near east. As adherents move into civilization they modify their religion to a more civilized one.
Not to say that the two don't intermingle, of course. There are far too many of the extremists throughout the rest of the world and that will continue to be so for many years. At the same time we can all see a gradual change even in the near east as Islam becomes more mainstream and its adherents accept that others have a right to life. More and more we find that the average "man in the steet" Muslim is not particularly interested in conquering but simply in being left alone to worship and live as they want.
It is a slow process (too slow!) and could well take centuries just as Christianity did, but it is happening. My personal hope is that speed of transformation will accelerate as more Muslims recognize the benefits of civilization and that those benefits cannot be realized by the hard core extremist attitudes and actions of their fellow Muslims. That they will, to a large degree, clean up their own house.And I pray you'r correct, wild.
I simply think to the Qu'ranic instructions that any who change the words and commands of allah are hypocrites, and should die for it.
I know what that command of the old testament did in Christianity, and it was only by the grace of God that Christianity survived that change at all, and didn't destroy itself or become even more radical. A backlash and retreat to fanatiscm is more than a probrable chance.
And I agree that there is a small... very small movement within Islam to enlighten the religion, but that movement is constantly crushed within the ummah itself, and many who attempt it are shot down dead for that attempt. And God bless them for trying wild, Islam is not a religion which takes any attempt to re-interpret its doctrines lightly, and most times it sparks seious violence against those seeking the change.
Another aspect that is ignored is that the reformers are not in Arabia, the seat of Islam, and the ones who rule the interpretations, and Arabia is in no rush and possesses no desire to change their interpretations of the Qu'ran.
So yes. I agree with you, many westernized Muslims do not want jihad... but far too many who are westernized and non-western, still do. And as you said that will take decades, maybe centuries to change.
My point is that if for some reason, Islam does take dominance in any western nation, that nation will not, as of today, be ruled by reformers, and those Muslims that do not believe in reformation adhere to strictist Islam, which is a militant and violent religion.
And if that happens, God watch over the non-muslims in those nations, because they will be rounded up and Sharia applied to them. That doesn't mean they would kill all the non-believers, there was a time in Islamic history in which they did kill them all, but Islam has realized the value of the "jizya"-poll tax- on non-muslims-, and these days Islam knows they, non-muslims, are an asset which should be drained financially and materialistically first and fore-most.
And just that change in Islmaic doctrine caused many an inter-Islam war, and much much blood-shed before it was accepted.
And yes, I remember Paas, and I challenged him every time I was on and he came around. Along with all the rest of them.
And of course you understand my last point about, trusting without verifying. Too many times people have been taken in an led to the ovens in this world because a certain segment of society could not understand, or refused to see, what was going on.
I fully agree with seperaton of church adn state, and believe it should apply to states as much as congress. I also believe in seperation of corporation and state.
What worries me here is how the argument seems to be more about the muslim flag being flown, than any religious flag at all.
Do you think this much fuss would have been raised if it was a christian symbol being flown?
If christian soldiers fighting for america are goign to have their flag flown, surely people of other religions should be allowed to have their flag flown too if they have fought and died.
I think the issue at hand here is being clouded by the church and state argument. Yes, we all think religion should have no control over government, it is dangerous.
Should the fallen soldiers who died for the country be allowed to have their own religions flags flown at their final resting place, I do not see much harm in it. I actually like the fact that they are allowing all religions and eve non-religions to fly their flag, after all isn't this country also founded on freedom of religion?Thanks Oli for bringing a bit of calm rationality into a very silly debate.
Oli, I'm with you right up to the final paragraph. There shouldn't be any harm in it (although I personally would prefer nothing but a sea of US flags honoring those that have helped protect the US). But there always well be.
There will always be a few that ruin it for the rest. It is so in childhood and it never stops for some. You can see the harm is this simple forum; hackles have been raised and names called. Out in real life the harm can (and often does) grow to something truly unacceptable.
Thus, the laws must be written tightly in an attempt to cover all possibilities and must be rigidly adhered to. There should be no religious references on public land. The far right religious won't accept that of course, but it will be easier to force down their throat than an actual acceptance of other religions icons on the same ground as theirs.I have accepted it, it is the law... that is why I do not think the Islamic or any other should have been flown. Period! American flags only... I am with you there wild. I think they would be fine on the graves themselves (those lil ones)... but not on the poles.
Possibly true. I am not going to argue too deeply since I actually agree that politics and religion should be seperated completely.
Despite this I think this event actually raises some interesting political issues, namely how many Americans are still associating the word Muslim with 9/11, not terrorist with 9/11.
I can see why flags should not be allowed to fly on political ground, however I think a relatively harmless show of support for the people who died for America has been twisted around in to an embarrasing public farce.
Yeah, and to get technical, many of us Americans don't believe it was Muslims who committede 9/11!!
What about our feelings?
We are totally ignored and vilified.
Only certain citizens count?We could not ignore truthers even if we were heavily sedated. They will go one despite everything the say being shown as false. But everyone is entitled to their opino, even if it is wrong
"And they were the architects of 911."
You believe this, many of us don't.
I have 0 problem with a Muslim flag.
I don't believe the official phony story. So any flag is like no big deal, when the perps and traitors to my country walk free.I agree with "lovemychris"
I think it is fine that they are flying the Muslim flag, America itself if a land of immigrants & not all Muslims are terrorists.They were, they even admit it. They are very proud of it. Only truthers do not belive the ones who tell them they did it and celebrated they did it. Wait til 911 this year. Tenth anniversary. Early chatter says there will be celebrations abroad by the terrorists for what they accomplished. But I am sure truthers will say that Bush planned the celebration from his Dallas home. Drugs must be getting stronger these days
I wish. Maybe then I could escape this truther convention for a few.
Why,you prefer denial?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/28 … f-mistake/Actually, I think they cannot face it. It's about as horrible a thing that can be done....
So, they fly to the convenient enemy...the status quo.
What the powers tell them, they believe.
But done it was, And we will NEVER forget. And we can wait....they can't change what has happened.
Obfuscate, lie and gurgitate though they try.
"But moooom! A building can't fall like that! It was a demolition!!!"
"Oh Timmy--eat your GM peas and watch the brainwash tv. The news told you what happened, so there it is."Gets old. Watch the slow motion of the collapse. It shows both toweres collapase STARTS at the point OF THE PLANES IMPACT, NOT AT THE BOTTOM AS A DEMOLITION REQUIRES, But as always, you will not. You would rather believe that Bush had them plant bombs, Pay the terrorists to fly the planes into the building exactly where the bombs were planted. Wow thats better accuracy than a scud missle has. Then he asked Todd Beaman to get on the plane and make it crash in Penn field. Then asked people like me to do our jobs to get lung diseases so our lives can be cut short. Sorry, as one whos life is going to be cut short, you have no clue and have no credibility on this subject. I am cery sure everyone did not waqnt to die on that day, none of the passengers wanted to be on those flights, but they did because as you say, Bush told them to. Man your story is getting so old
"Remeber this keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. Our enemies are better than that than we are. We back leaders, groups, we supply them intel, weapons, mteach the tatics, then they show thier true colors and turn on us. But that was the plan from the start. Things are not so cut and dry as you want to believe they are."
Exactly what I believe....but my enemies are different than yours.
So--why do yours rate, and mine don't?
Status Qou...you believe it, I don't.LMC,
Everyone is entitled to there opinion, even the wrong ones. I do not have a problem with you having an opinion, you just dont respect everyone elses or the fact I have one to. Each to his own.Arguing against someone else's opinion isn't "being rude". Especially not in a place where one is supposed to be doing that.
For example, a Politics and Social Issues forum thread!talking about each others opinion is clearly a great thing. Being close minded as you are is not. Thats where the rudeness comes from, pwewing hate and lies to change the fact you were wrong and cannot admit it. Atleast LMC puts up a good arument without the insults, well most of the times. But she usually insults the issue or the politicians, not the person she is talking to. Something you could learn
'aiding them in their attempted Islamic take over of the country'?? what!? not only does the muslim flag have nothing to do with the terrorist act committed but your being a hateful idiot is exactly what the extremists do. good to see your sinking to their level. CONGRATS
See how it goes... you make a statement and they run to the extreme with it and then accuse you of being the extremist. It is actually quite amusing to watch.
Wow Evan.. I knew you had issues... but the language and hate in that post is just beyond what I expected even from you... especially from you. I thought you were al lil better than that. I am not even that rude, nor is Tex.
Oh no, not a curse word.
The only hatred that was in my post is the hatred of the un-named man who had his daughter slaughtered by a drone missile that one of our presidents chose to allow to drop.
Oh, and don't lecture me on "hatred" -- you ACTUALLY believe that "Muslims" are taught "hatred" so that they can attack us.
Oh, and by the way, the bible teaches quite a few screwed up things as well. Have you ever bothered to read it?
http://www.evilbible.com/Just didn't expect it from you evan... I know better now. It wasn't the curse words, but the hatred for America I saw in that post, along with those words.
"America" is a false god, TM. I think that the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath just about sums up my feelings towards "MY" country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZCyOWLr … re=related
You're against taxation, but why are you not demanding that my tax dollars NOT fund that which I am against?
I think I'll groove to it right now.
PEACE.
"POLITICIANS HIDE THEMSELVES AWAY, THEY ONLY STARTED THE WAR!!! WHY SHOULD THEY GO OUT TO THE FIGHT?! THEY LEAVE THAT ROLE TO THE POOR!!!"
Here is some facts about Israel and the Arabs and who is to blame for todays conflict and the refugees.
Enjoy the history lesson...
The British had wrestled Palestine away from the Ottoman Turks in 1917, and they occupied Palestine until 1947, and shortly thereafter, the United Nations voted to divide western Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab areas. The Jews accepted this plan, and the Arabs rejected it. Not only did they reject the UN partition plan, but 7 Arab nations decided to attack the fledgling Jewish microstate with public proclamations of Jewish extermination. It was surrounding these events that the Palestinian Arab refugee problem was born:
"According to official records of the League of Nations and Arab census figure 539,000 Arabs left Israel at the urging of 7 converging Arab armies so that they would not be in the way of their attack. They promised the fleeing Arabs they would return and move into the Jews' houses after the anticipated successful annihilation of the Jews.
"We know that 850,000 Jews were ejected from the Arab countries where they had lived for hundreds of years. This included successful people whose property and assets, including community assets were immediately confiscated. 750,000 penniless Jews from Arab countries fled to Israel.
"This was a virtual exchange of population. The Jewish refugees were immediately accepted by the new State of Israel. They were provided with shelter (albeit temporary tents) food and clothing.
"The Arab refugees who had migrated to various Arab nations were not similarly well received. They were regarded not as Arab brothers but as unwelcome migrants who were not to be trusted. Squalid refugee camps were set up as showpieces to induce the West's sympathy and kept that way. The UN through UNRWA (UN Relief Agency) provided assistance to the camps when the host country could not or would not. These camps became a training ground for terrorist youth to be targeted at Israel. The host country, like Syria, would provide training, weapons and explosives, but refused to absorb the Arab refugees as equal citizens. Keeping them in misery made them valuable and irreplaceable as angry front line terrorists attacking Israel as proxies for the Arab armies who lost to the Jews on the field of battle in declared wars. The Twin Pillars supporting Arab Muslim society are "Pride and Shame". Losing to the Jews on the battlefield time and again in 6 wars shattered the self perception of the Macho Man.
- Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst and commentator
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
"Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
"We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."
- David Ben-Gurion, in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948, moments before the 6 surrounding Arab armies, trained and armed by the British, invaded the day-old Jewish microstate, with the stated goal of extermination.
"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".
- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976
"The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."
- Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948
"The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."
- London Times, May 5, 1948
"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948
"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948
"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183
"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".
- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25
The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31
I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481
- Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949
We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
- Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951
Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.
- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963
"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954
"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948
"The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"
- Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953
"[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949
"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""
- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz
"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14
"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963
"...our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents ... Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families."
The Haifa Workers' Council bulletin, 28 April 1948
"...the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country."
The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48
" The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously, and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs.
...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families."
- Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948
"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."
- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387
"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war [note: same person as above]
"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property." - bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957
One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.
Commentary Magazine -- January 2000, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0001/letters.html
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-c … sp#Whathap
Figure out who the blame belongs to, then scream about it to them.I love this "us vs. them" crap.
Your entire post started with "The british ran in and screwed up the Muslim countries really really really really badly"
and then you conclude with "they're evil, not us".
... ugh.WOW! Mason , do you get paid by the word?
No, he doesn't actually read what he copies, just hopes that if he copies enough it will touch on the subject he's pontificating on.
Where do i do that? I just joined this yesterday. I am not as interested or educated enough on the sub topics at hand to make a statement that will be completely torn apart.
haha thank you ive written a couple....i am really loving this site i cant believe i just now stumbled upon it!
Do not worry AW this is a funsite. You can pick up some fact you may not have known before. Thats part of the fun Good luck here
Actually John, the article says there was an out-cry and they took the Christian flag down, as advised by the city attorney that they were violating the law.
I know you do not like that... but it is true.I don't give a monkeys about that. I'm more bothered by your outrage that they planned to fly a Muslim flag.
They plan to fly the black flag of Islam... do you have any clue what that flag represents John? I bet you do not.
Islamic Flags, known as the 'Flags of Islam' ('Alam al-Islam) or 'Flags of Shahada' ('Alam al-Shahada) featuring the first Kalimah, the Shahada, are widely used by Muslims. White flags with black lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Salam/Islam'- the abode, or "House of Islam, and Black flags with white lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Harb/Kufr'- the "House Of War" or the "House of the Unbelievers", most commonly the first, because anywhere there is non-believers and Islam does not riegn supreme, is the "House of War".
So to fly that flag in this nation over our vets graves is a slap in our face! You can spin it all you want... those flags mean what they mean and that is an insult to fly it at that memorial on the day. Too bad!
The Black Flag of Jihad is more than just a declaration of Muslim faith. It is Mohammed’s battle flag. Throughout the history of Islam it has been displayed or flown whenever the mujahideen sally forth to behead the infidels. Suicide bombers record their last videos with the black flag in the background. Terrorists behead their captives for the camera while standing in front of the black flag.
The Black Flag of Jihad is a declaration of war.
UNACCEPTABLE!! Fly it in your own country over the graves of your dead, on their day of honor. You are unbelievable.Oh, so now you know that they intended to fly the black flag of Jihad!
Funny that, there is no mention of that anywhere else.
You have a comprehension problem. I have said I agree with your interpretation of the constitution... but the Courts do not and have changed the interpretation. Your issue is with them, not me or AV. You do not like the interpretation of the Supreme Court Sue and get it over-turned.
How can you not understand that... it is simple.Flag Flier Decides No Flag Will Fly On 9/11
Muslim Flag To Be Displayed In Nov.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43484165/ns … -fly-king/
Well that's a good thing.
No need to stop
A good thing?
Why should any of us be happy that some guy isn't allowed to use his God-Given freedom to fly a flag?Evan, I notice no objection to Muslims laying down their lives for their country - America!
It'll take years to get anyone to agree with this statement.
Good luck John, I'm done here.It will take forever because you are wrong. Does it not hit you that other than John, noone thinks you are right
John,
the issue is not who can and who cannot lay down their life. The issue is a religious flag that cannot fly on public property. As I have said all alongt, if it was owned privately and not by the city, they could fly whatever they want as it says in the furst amendment, but on city property, serperatrion of church and state applies. The rest of what is said does not matter. The Supreme court ruled on this, accept it. Even the City attorney said they were in violation and took down the Christian flag CASE CLOSEDJust take a moment, scroll to the top of the page and read the topic title.
John,
You should have taken your own advise
Muslim Flag to fly on 911 in N. Carolina
FLAG>>>>>> Seems I heard that before, I see nothing here about muslims laying down their life. ................... InterestingAnd I see nothing about it being illegal to fly religious flags on state buildings.
Sorry forgot to include link
http://www.google.com/webhp#q=separatio … mp;bih=522
He is just playing stupid, AV. He won't post nothing but denials and sarcasm. He knows damn well his ilk created this situation in America, and now they want to ignore all their fine work to allow Islam to have and do anything they want.
I certainly don't subscribe to your paranoia. Most Muslims are in the UK because they want to be here and get on very well. Unfortunately second and third generation Muslims are not quite as easy going as their parents (or maybe not as grateful) They view themselves as English but react to the hatred shown to them by the likes of you and respond as many young people do with violence, having no other voice.
The vast majority of these kids restrict themselves to shouting and being rude to people in the streets.
I don't argue that Muslims should have and do whatever they want, they should have exactly the same as every other British citizen. No more and certainly no less.Yes, the EDF would agree with you whole heartedly. Not to mention those who have come out and declared openly that all the Islamic imigration and "Cultural Diversity" has destroyed, and is destroying, their nation. There are a lot of poeple in England who feel digfferently about your Muslim residents than you, John. Too bad. And sit there blindly as they take over your country, America will not come save you all again. I can garauntee that.
I go to the UK quite often and seen the changes! they are big. Even the bankers I work with tell me all the time as soon as they are done they are moving out! I was there in October and they had fireworks going off for some Muslim Holiday like it was the 4th of July.
Listen to his last statement he is making excuses for bad behavior of these People who start trouble. Doesn't that say enough?The EDF! You are joking?
Sure there are a lot of people who feel differently to me, they tend to wear swastikas and goose step all over the place.
I've quite enjoyed the cultural diversity, people no longer joke about our food.
They are actually a lot less intrusive than the American service men that lord it over us.
I'm done with this forum. I'll part with a few statements:
1) Freedom to fly a flag - people have the right to fly flags.
2) The Constitution - I'm disgusted to see people incapable of reading the First word of the First Amendment of our Constitution: CONGRESS. The Federal Government has NO say in this entire debate, only the states or cities do -- thus "Separation of Church and State" is nonsense. The Constitution is clearly set up in a way as to PREVENT laws from being passed, not to allow tyranny.
3) Us vs. Them - I'm seeing countless people mad about this, and other issues, based entirely out of an "Us Vs. Them" mentality. There is no "us", there is no "them". Only individuals act. Further, I'm seeing people contradict posts they make in other forums SIMPLY because they're blinded by their "Us Vs. Them" perspective. Stick to your guns, or shut up.
4) "But mommy, he hit me first" - People here are citing 9/11 as "they hit us first". All the history I can come up with is that the UN (read - the most powerful CHRISTIAN nations) stole land from Muslims and then proceeded to help fund the slaughter there of. And if we really wanna get technical - I seem to remember something about Christians going on Holy Crusades to murder Muslims a few centuries ago.
Either way, we need to recognize that idiotic thinking like this only leads to more violence.
I'm done here.Bye bye Evan.
And you can take the issue up with the Supreme Courts, untill then it is the law of the land.
And I have said there are restrictions on all rights, ie; freedom of speech, cannot be inciteful, freedom of expression, cannot be inciteful... see the logic... no I bet you do not.Erm, unless of course your ex girlfriend had an abortion and then you can be as inciteful as you like!
Hypocrisy.hahaha I already said I would not do that. And that billboard is not inciteful at all. Have you seen many Abortion ads? Obviously not. They have all manner of things in them that are worse that that ad.
Oh well that's OK then. I'll remember that if I ge stopped for speeding "but officer, I saw somebody going much faster than me".
Your answers have become a joke , John. Shows you have no real support for the trash you spout.
That is what he is about.
He looks for something other than the actual topic and spins it to devert from the true issue.
I also caught on to him. It is a socialist/Leftist thing.
JOHN THE SOCIALIST!
I really like how that sounds.You certainly are john the socialist.
It's OK we have your number.Well give me a ring sometime and I'll demolish you vocally instead of in writing for a change.
When have you ever demolished anyone on here.......
Oh Danny is a kelly doll, and you aren't much better. Anyway, aren't you supposed to be busy inventing a piece of Sharia law that says men must rape children? Trying to find justification for not flying a Muslim flag, proving that Hitler was a socialist, that freedom of speech is selective and one hundred and one other mad ideas?
But if you had this information at your finger tips as you implied you should have just been able to tell me rather than tell me to look it up myself.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that something is culturally acceptable it is written in any book.
Don't forget that in the US it was legal until recently for a twelve year old girl to have sex, and in the frontier days age was probably no consideration at all.
All that is a long way from Sharia condoning child gang rape.when was it legal for a girl that young to have sex?? Please show me this proof. Also then you go way back? It is 2011 not 1800 or less. That is funny John, You're stooping to new lows.
Well, let's see, Jerry Lee Lewis came to England in 1958 with his thirteen year old bride.
The age of consent in Spain is 13. In the UK the age of consent was raised to 13 in 1875.
Now there was an example. First John, know and understand what you write. JLL lied about his wifes age. when he was found out, America turned their back on him and his career was over. See John, america does not approve, even if your age on consent is 13, ours is 16 or 18, depends on the state. If you have sex with someone under that age, we send them to jail. Your ignorant statement is a joke as you try to demonize America for what England allows. Curious, if the age of consent is 13 in england as you point out, then why did the English turn on him for doing something that was legal in your country? Just one more show of American bashing by your country. Sort of like you do everyday here.
Lewis's turbulent personal life was hidden from the public until a May 1958 British tour where Ray Berry, a news agency reporter at London's Heathrow Airport (the only journalist present), learned about Lewis's third wife, Myra Gale Brown. She was Lewis's first cousin once removed[10][11] and only 13 years old. (Brown, Lewis, and his management all insisted she was 15). Lewis was nearly 23 years old. The publicity caused an uproar and the tour was cancelled after only three concerts.
The scandal followed Lewis home to America, and as a result, he was blacklisted from radio and almost vanished from the music scene. Lewis felt betrayed by numerous people who had been his supporters. Dick Clark dropped him from his shows. Lewis even felt that Sam Phillips had sold him outThere you go again, a typical example of right wing twisting, I didn't say that the age of consent in the UK was 13 now!
John I told you If you want to meet when I return to the UK i will buy you dinner.
I'm a man of my word. Actually there is a great restaurant named Dante's on Uxbridge Road London. Very good food.
Also another but the name skips me. Great pork chops! place isn't Fancy but food is out of this world!
On the contrary, you have become such a joke with the trash you spout that I can't be bothered to work up any thing more serious.
John,
ex girlfriend had an abortion
Really? So glad you can stay on topic.It was in response to TMs remark about freedom of speech and so very much on topic, keep up.
And the secret word was flag flying.. Yea you were so right on topic
This from the man who thinks Carpet Wars is the tale of a travelling carpet salesman
And good riddens. Funny you did not take me up on my challenge. If you were so right about the false statement you were making, you could have taken the challenge and I would have been gone, but you couldnt because you were wrong and making up statements as you went.
EVIDENCE THAT ISLAM ALLOWS CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEX BEFORE MENSTRUATION
Starting with the Quran:
If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement. God will ease the hardship of the man who fears him. 65:4, Dawood
Brother Sam Shamoun comments on this verse:
The surrounding context deals with the issue of the waiting period for divorce, and remarriage. The Quran is telling Muslims to wait for a certain period of time before making the divorce final or deciding to forego it. The Quran exhorts men to wait a period of three months in the case of women who either are no longer menstruating or haven’t even started their menstrual cycles! (Source)
Since Muslim men are to wait 3 months before divorcing a prepubescent child it means that they have been engaging in sex with those children.
I quote three Islamic scholars commentary related to 65:4 and the subject of sex with prepubescent children:
Ibn Kathir writes regarding 65:4
<divorce them at their `Iddah>, "The `Iddah is made up of cleanliness and the menstrual period." So he divorces her while it is clear that she is pregnant, or he does not due to having sex, or since he does not know if she is pregnant or not. This is why the scholars said that there are two types of divorce, one that conforms to the Sunnah and another innovated. The divorce that conforms to the Sunnah is one where the husband pronounces one divorce to his wife when she is not having her menses and without having had sexual intercourse with her after the menses ended. One could divorce his wife when it is clear that she is pregnant. As for the innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does not know if she became pregnant or not. There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces A YOUNG WIFE WHO HAS NOT BEGUN TO HAVE MENSES, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one's wife before the marriage was consummated. (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Al-Tabari said regarding 65:4
The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.
Tafseer al-Tabari, 14/142 (Source: Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com)
(Question #12708: Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?)
Regarding sex with prepubescent children, Abu-Ala’ Maududi states:
"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible." (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)
From these verses and the actions of the prophet momo, the Sunnah and Hadith, and the Qu'ran, are dirived the laws of sex with children in Sharia through the act of Itjadadi and Al"Fiqh. Mohhammuds actions were seen as the tem,plate for the perfect man. So when he married a child of 6, and had sex with her at 9, he set the example and no muslim or other has the right to change it. As mohhommuds actions and words are sen as LAW, same as the words of allah are seen as LAW.
It is not a cultural, but a religious prescription and doctrine. Too bad, John.You just happened to have a Quran lying around so you could quote it?
And where do the boys come in all this?
And surely this talks of marriage, not randomly screwing young girls?Oh you are looking to get me banned... I do not know about posting those dirivatory rulings, they are quite explicit, John.
I suggest you google them and read them online. You will find the same as I, unless you simply ignore them. It has to do with those children not being Islamic, and therefore under the laws of Jihad and Sharia, which is what is going on in the world do not be fooled, and a Muslims mans right to treat said non-believers and their children as they want to, in any way. Go
look for yourself man.
I have produced more than enough material about Islam in general, and what is is about, and what supports my knowledge of it, which should have at least made you think about it and want to find the truth.
If not is is selective ignorance on your part.I rather think it is you demonstrating selective ignorance.
In case you've forgotten TM, here's what you said in the topic about Asians raping children
"Becasue it is LAWFUL under ISLAMIC SHARIA to have sex with lil girls and boys. No big secret there."
The implication being that Islam approved of raping children.I suggest you google them and read them online. You will find the same as I, unless you simply ignore them. It has to do with those children not being Islamic, and therefore under the laws of Jihad and Sharia, which is what is going on in the world do not be fooled, and a Muslims mans right to treat said non-believers and their children as they want to, in any way. Go
look for yourself man.
I have produced more than enough material about Islam in general, and what is is about, and what supports my knowledge of it, which should have at least made you think about it and want to find the truth.
If not is is selective ignorance on your part.
Related Discussions
- 2500
I agree with Ben Carson, no muslims as president.
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
IT WAS OBAMA who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."IT WAS OBAMA who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.IT WAS OBAMA who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."IT WAS OBAMA who assured the Egyptian Foreign...
- 47
Is the Obama Presidency advancing Islam?
by cjhunsinger 8 years ago
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law over the Constitution?The president of the United States has on several...
- 58
"Golden age” of Spain: peaceful spread of Islam
by paarsurrey 8 years ago
Hi friendsIslam spread very peacefully in Europe as can be seen from the following account of the Wikipedia:A major development in the history of Muslim Spain was the dynastic change in 750 in the Arab Caliphate, when an Ummayad Prince escaped the slaughter of his family in Damascus, fled to...
- 117
A Mosque at ground zero NY; You are kidding right.
by TMMason 13 years ago
I would say your kidding right. But they are not."What could be more insulting and humiliating than a monster mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center buildings that were brought down by an Islamic jihad attack? Any decent, American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn’t dream of such an...
- 23
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think
by navneetjha 9 years ago
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think?I know its bit sesitive issues. However I was thinking why most of the terrorists in the world are muslims? Is it something to do with their faith which is rigid and do not change with time. For example, in my religion...
- 241
Muslim wears AMERICAN FLAG as headress
by Army Infantry Mom 14 years ago
I'd like to know what people think of this,..Video - Captial Hill - Muslim wears AMERICAN FLAG as headress - http://bit.ly/rU4giPersonally I think it B.S. This past Sunday was "Honor Gold Mom's Day " I didn't see Obama inviting those Mom's to the Capital's state lawn, praying for those...