Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Reforming Islam....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    We discovered recently something that might help to explain the barbarism of islam, at least the middle eastern variety. Inbreeding. It seems that some, in fact quite a few of muslims have a cultural tradition to marry their first cousins, and it has been habitual for 40 generations. Not only does it predispose these muslims to particular physical problems, health problems, but also it predisposes these muslims to mental aberrations, or it creates basically insanity. Now this would explain their brutal behavior, especially when coupled with a religion of a book which prescribes particular behavior that can to violent and murderous.

    Not sure if their religious texts suggests this inbreeding, or if it is just cultural. But regardless, this would explain how these cultures are still mentally living in the 8th century in behavior patterns. If Christianity suffered from this, we would still be burning alleged witches at the stake, and torturing people to get a confession of copulating with Satan.

    ?


    • #62
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
      It may not have mattered. Draw lines, create boundaries or let THEM do it . . . and would they have ? Probably . . . not. Same results, warring "tribes" of whatevers, never able to make peace.

      What's new ?

      We attempted. The argument that we shouldn't have attempted can be made. Would that have made things better or worse ? Why and how ?
      Here is what should have happened -most likely scenario: Western powers basically stay out of re-drawing the map of ME after WWI, although they did make their business interests known to the powers that be. The local despots (ranging from would-be monarchs to pseudo-generals) would prefer their own muslim sects as subjects, rather than begin a state by wading into a hornet's nest of sectarian warfare. Certain states -Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia- are established or have strong tendencies in that direction. The "map" problem is an area that breaks away from Turkey after WW1: present day Syria thru Israel, east to Mesopotamia. A survey of those areas (should have been) taken, to allow tribes to identify a preference and their leadership to form plans. No doubt, there would have been some violence, as groups found themselves on the wrong side of a boundary or stuck under a leader who would be their worst choice. However, those boundaries were organic: They were based on groups who chose to be with like-minded people, who would only accept a leader that would consider his state's interests before outside interests.

      Go figure. There was a proposal that was similar, even completing a survey of the locals. Link:
      Wilson proposed a solution. The only way to find out if the residents of Syria would accept a French mandate and those of Palestine and Mesopotamia would accept British rule, the US president said, was to find out what people in those regions wanted. It was a simple and self-evident idea. For two months, the Chicago businessman Charles Crane and the American theologian Henry King travelled through the Middle East and interviewed hundreds of Arab notables. Although the British and the French did all they could to influence the outcome of the mission, their findings were clear. Locals in Syria did not want to be part of a French mandate and those in Palestine were uninterested in being included in a British mandate.
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-946052-2.html

      Naturally, English and French interests smothered this proposal in it's crib, and applied their crayons to map out the region. Rather than immediately denounce the entire Versailles process (and the sham that was to become the League of Nations), Wilson caved in. A darn shame. Not to claim that WW2 would not have happened, but it is easy to believe that an "End to Empire" speech and a walk-out by Wilson, would have done the world some good. Imagine more natural boundaries and less violence in the ME, today. Imagine a Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, starting in 1920 (not 1946). Imagine both Dems and GOP in 1935, cynical of a League of Nations which the US never joined, preparing a military plan to depose a certain dictator or two in central Europe, as soon as any country was annexed. Or a US who was trusted much more by former colonies, not only in the ME, but in Africa. Scaled-down military bases established in Ethiopia, so US military could supply equipment and training, the Italian fascists could not get a foothold. Or the war for the "hearts and minds" of former colonies: How would the new, but violent and federalized bolshevik movement compete with the most radical and far-reaching revolution? The Republic that Wilson just declared as the one to End all Empires?

      The brief answer is this: It would have been a true Pax Americana. It would have been a vast improvement on the Pax Romana, because our network would have developed thru natural means, not thru military conquest, but business ties and development of democratic republics. The communist movements would have soon followed their fascist mirror-images, by the end of the 1950's they were nearly extinct due to the fast-developing "scandanavian option", a more flexible democratic republic with socialist elements.

      Wilson had this in his hands. And his lack of foresight ran it thru his fingers as if it were water.

      ?


      • #63
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        Yes human beings have always been very violent. But the question is, does islam tend to be violent, beyond general violence, because of their religious beliefs? And do those beliefs tend to make them more violent than say, Christians? And we must put this into the context of today, for what either group did hundreds of years ago is not important today, given we do not live in an earlier era, and religions can change. We certainly see a great change in Christianity, when comparing today to much earlier times.

        Islam tends to follow their religious books to the letter, more so than Christianity does today. But yet, the condoned violence and killing in the NT is almost 180 degrees from the condoned and even prescribed violence, coming from God via his prophet mohammed in the Islamic religious texts. Given the way Christ taught to treat others, non believers, when compared to what god supposedly told mohammed about treatment, and punishment, and in regards to war, is not at all comparable. So, if a Christian followed the NT, there would be no violence or murder at all. The same is not true of the Islamic religious texts, quite the contrary. So, a muslim is told by god to be violent, even to murder and a good muslim follows what god told him to do, and how to act.

        Given this, one without even going to the middle east to observe for himself, would logically expect islam to be much more violent and murderous, IF they followed what their sacred, holy books told them to do. But if a Christian followed what the NT told them to do, it would be lacking in violence and murder. Does this make a difference between the two religions, making islam more violent, in reality? I think objective people would have to say yes. For you cannot be a good muslim unless you do as allah told you to do. And you cannot be a good Christian if you do not follow what god in the NT told the followers to do. So god did not tell the muslims to behave like Christians, nor did he tell the Christian to behave as muslims are supposed to behave. It seems to be a totally different god, or one that changes his mind on some very core issues. LOL


        Agreed!

        ?


        • #64
          Originally posted by msc View Post

          Agreed!
          I agree 100% that if Christians lived by the NT Things would be great, but the rub is that republican Christians are above all republicans which means they advocate torture and unspeakable barbarity.When have you ever heard of a republican turning the other cheek?

          ?


          • #65
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Here is what should have happened -most likely scenario: Western powers basically stay out of re-drawing the map of ME after WWI, although they did make their business interests known to the powers that be. The local despots (ranging from would-be monarchs to pseudo-generals) would prefer their own muslim sects as subjects, rather than begin a state by wading into a hornet's nest of sectarian warfare. Certain states -Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia- are established or have strong tendencies in that direction. The "map" problem is an area that breaks away from Turkey after WW1: present day Syria thru Israel, east to Mesopotamia. A survey of those areas (should have been) taken, to allow tribes to identify a preference and their leadership to form plans. No doubt, there would have been some violence, as groups found themselves on the wrong side of a boundary or stuck under a leader who would be their worst choice. However, those boundaries were organic: They were based on groups who chose to be with like-minded people, who would only accept a leader that would consider his state's interests before outside interests.

            Go figure. There was a proposal that was similar, even completing a survey of the locals. Link:

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-946052-2.html

            Naturally, English and French interests smothered this proposal in it's crib, and applied their crayons to map out the region. Rather than immediately denounce the entire Versailles process (and the sham that was to become the League of Nations), Wilson caved in. A darn shame. Not to claim that WW2 would not have happened, but it is easy to believe that an "End to Empire" speech and a walk-out by Wilson, would have done the world some good. Imagine more natural boundaries and less violence in the ME, today. Imagine a Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, starting in 1920 (not 1946). Imagine both Dems and GOP in 1935, cynical of a League of Nations which the US never joined, preparing a military plan to depose a certain dictator or two in central Europe, as soon as any country was annexed. Or a US who was trusted much more by former colonies, not only in the ME, but in Africa. Scaled-down military bases established in Ethiopia, so US military could supply equipment and training, the Italian fascists could not get a foothold. Or the war for the "hearts and minds" of former colonies: How would the new, but violent and federalized bolshevik movement compete with the most radical and far-reaching revolution? The Republic that Wilson just declared as the one to End all Empires?

            The brief answer is this: It would have been a true Pax Americana. It would have been a vast improvement on the Pax Romana, because our network would have developed thru natural means, not thru military conquest, but business ties and development of democratic republics. The communist movements would have soon followed their fascist mirror-images, by the end of the 1950's they were nearly extinct due to the fast-developing "scandanavian option", a more flexible democratic republic with socialist elements.

            Wilson had this in his hands. And his lack of foresight ran it thru his fingers as if it were water.
            A very interesting writing about some of what you're talking about here (see below).

            A lot to read, but it illustrates why islam is in need of reformations.



            ---------------------------------------------------
            ....

            At core, the wave of Arab uprisings that commenced in 2011 is this generation's attempt at changing the consequences of the state order that began in the aftermath of World War One.

            This currently unfolding transformation entails the promise of a new generation searching for a better future, and the peril of a wave of chaos that could engulf the region for several years.


            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553

            ---------------------------------------------------

            Islams early "influence" on America....

            ---------------------------------------------------

            Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

            After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

            The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise, Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.

            Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Quran) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.

            John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a military fanatic who denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms
            .

            President Obama is correct when he says that Muslims shaped this country, just not in how he means. They provided the context and need for the US Marines and provided our first lesson in battling extremism: It cannot be appeased. Extremism must be routed out through force.

            http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/ob...out-mussellmen

            ---------------------------------------------------

            The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. [..]

            The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. []

            John Quincy Adams: A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry#194) contains Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War and on Greece, (The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29 (NY: 1830):

            http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/am...tm_campaign=LC





            ?


            • #66
              Islam will never reform. It is the spawn of evil.

              ?


              • #67
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                Islam will never reform. It is the spawn of evil.
                Which explains why both Adolph Hitler AND liberals were/are so friendly with islam. . .

                ... I shouldn't have wrote that, it's not politically correct and will probably offend someone.

                Why is the truth always "offensive" to certain people ?

                ?


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Which explains why both Adolph Hitler AND liberals were/are so friendly with islam. . .

                  ... I shouldn't have wrote that, it's not politically correct and will probably offend someone.

                  Why is the truth always "offensive" to certain people ?
                  You don't offend me. I just feel sorry for you.

                  ?


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    You don't offend me. I just feel sorry for you.
                    Thanks, I appreciate that LOL

                    ?


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      A very interesting writing about some of what you're talking about here (see below).

                      A lot to read, but it illustrates why islam is in need of reformations.



                      ---------------------------------------------------
                      ....

                      At core, the wave of Arab uprisings that commenced in 2011 is this generation's attempt at changing the consequences of the state order that began in the aftermath of World War One.

                      This currently unfolding transformation entails the promise of a new generation searching for a better future, and the peril of a wave of chaos that could engulf the region for several years.


                      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553

                      ---------------------------------------------------

                      Islams early "influence" on America....

                      ---------------------------------------------------

                      Muslims did have an influence on early America, and that influence was one of a foe. After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

                      After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

                      The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise, Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible.

                      Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Quran) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.

                      John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a military fanatic who denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms
                      .

                      President Obama is correct when he says that Muslims shaped this country, just not in how he means. They provided the context and need for the US Marines and provided our first lesson in battling extremism: It cannot be appeased. Extremism must be routed out through force.

                      http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/ob...out-mussellmen

                      ---------------------------------------------------

                      The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. [..]

                      The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. []

                      John Quincy Adams: A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry#194) contains Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War and on Greece, (The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29 (NY: 1830):

                      http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/am...tm_campaign=LC





                      So what our founders experienced with the muslims sounds like radical islam today. So it isn't radical islam, it is just islam. Which means the moderates are just using subterfuge, as they fill up Europe and even here in certain parts of the country. Muslims cannot be trusted, for they think they have Allah behind them, dictating their feelings towards non muslims. Well, France and other European nations who have taken them in will be the canary in the mine, unless we get democrats back in power and they fill up America with them, as they breed like rabbits.

                      ?


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        So what our founders experienced with the muslims sounds like radical islam today. So it isn't radical islam, it is just islam. Which means the moderates are just using subterfuge, as they fill up Europe and even here in certain parts of the country. Muslims cannot be trusted, for they think they have Allah behind them, dictating their feelings towards non muslims. Well, France and other European nations who have taken them in will be the canary in the mine, unless we get democrats back in power and they fill up America with them, as they breed like rabbits.
                        That is correct. The history of islam is a long and bloody testament to what we can expect as they become more populous anywhere and there are ... non- muslims around.

                        Liberals, as usual accept destruction & death in the name of "tolerance." Wickedly foolish.

                        Like I said above; "Adolph Hitler AND liberals were/are both friendly with islam. . "

                        ?


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          That is correct. The history of islam is a long and bloody testament to what we can expect as they become more populous anywhere and there are ... non- muslims around.

                          Liberals, as usual accept destruction & death in the name of "tolerance." Wickedly foolish.

                          Like I said above; "Adolph Hitler AND liberals were/are both friendly with islam. . "
                          Bill Maher is much tougher on Islam than W https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...e-9-11-attacks.

                          ?


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post
                            Bill Maher is much tougher on Islam than W https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...e-9-11-attacks.
                            Entertainers & politicians - schizophrenics all LOL

                            ?


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              Bill Maher is much tougher on Islam than W https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...e-9-11-attacks.
                              Yep, old Bill gets into trouble with faux liberals over the issue of islam. But of course Bill is against all religions, as seen in Religiousity. Think that was the name of his film. But he sets Islam aside, even elevates it above the more benign religions, as being particularly dangerous, given their apparent inability to reform to the point they are not in violent contention not only with other religions, but secularism as well.

                              Of course the problem with Islam is foundational, and goes back to Mohammed, a bloodthirsty bastard, a man of the sword, and the religion flows from that. I guess killing is even more gratifying when you are killing for their god, allah? These people surely do enjoy killing other humans so much. They take such delight in it. Institutionalized barbarism. But what kind of mind enjoys sawing off a head with a butcher knife? IMO, a demon possessed mind, a satanic mind. Certainly not a religious mind. Even the atheist Bill M. can note the difference.

                              The most absurd and ludicrous thing to watch are faux liberals who hate the more benign Christians, go to the defense of Muslims, simply because it is their perception that these evil Christians are verbally attacking Islam. Ok for faux liberals to vulgarly attack and made fun of Christians, but you better not do that to muslims. Most of my problems with the modern liberal, faux liberals is what I see them as, are the number of incoherence in their positions and beliefs. Along with their rainbow and unicorn ideals, which contradict human nature, and human nature is what creates the reality of daily existence, socially and interactionally. Of course the right wingers are also guilty of some of this too, but not on the level of the faux liberal democrats. And, if you want nasty, if you want vulgar, if you want character on the level of whale shit, you will only find this to such an extensive degree with the faux liberal left. How the peace and love generation led to this has always puzzled me. I mean, how do you get from that, to how the faux liberals are today? Even that is an incoherence.
                              Last edited by Blue Doggy; 05-08-2017, 02:53 PM.

                              ?


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                                Yep, old Bill gets into trouble with faux liberals over the issue of islam. But of course Bill is against all religions, as seen in Religiousity. Think that was the name of his film. But he sets Islam aside, even elevates it above the more benign religions, as being particularly dangerous, given their apparent inability to reform to the point they are not in violent contention not only with other religions, but secularism as well.

                                Of course the problem with Islam is foundational, and goes back to Mohammed, a bloodthirsty bastard, a man of the sword, and the religion flows from that. I guess killing is even more gratifying when you are killing for their god, allah? These people surely do enjoy killing other humans so much. They take such delight in it. Institutionalized barbarism. But what kind of mind enjoys sawing off a head with a butcher knife? IMO, a demon possessed mind, a satanic mind. Certainly not a religious mind. Even the atheist Bill M. can note the difference.

                                The most absurd and ludicrous thing to watch are faux liberals who hate the more benign Christians, go to the defense of Muslims, simply because it is their perception that these evil Christians are verbally attacking Islam. Ok for faux liberals to vulgarly attack and made fun of Christians, but you better not do that to muslims. Most of my problems with the modern liberal, faux liberals is what I see them as, are the number of incoherence in their positions and beliefs. Along with their rainbow and unicorn ideals, which contradict human nature, and human nature is what creates the reality of daily existence, socially and interactionally. Of course the right wingers are also guilty of some of this too, but not on the level of the faux liberal democrats. And, if you want nasty, if you want vulgar, if you want character on the level of whale shit, you will only find this to such an extensive degree with the faux liberal left. How the peace and love generation led to this has always puzzled me. I mean, how do you get from that, to how the faux liberals are today? Even that is an incoherence.
                                I certainly do not speak for all faux liberals but I do not by any standard hold Islam in high regard. To me Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, God are all the same Wizard of OZ. I guess you can argue that Muslims are more vicious than Baptists but Christianity is far from benign. Just look at Trump's call for an increased level of barbarity.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X