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 shouldn’t 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

If Obama Isn't a Muslim, What Is He?

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

  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Imawhosure View Post
    I know, I know, the crusades were terrible, and Muslims are wonderful! I get it, I really do; at least when listening to some of the people on here. But hey, I always say history teaches all things, and since some want to talk about the crusades (lol) I will give you a much more modern version of the evil that is Islam. Want to check it out before you hold your position?

    http://www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopi...ngenocide.html And oh yes, this had nothing to do with the EVIL UNITED STATES doing anything, sticking their nose anywhere, etc. Wonder why President Obysmal didn't bring it up? Maybe he isn't a student of history, or maybe he wants to insure that you aren't either. And oh yes, it comes from the most liberal rag in the country, the New York Times. I wanted to make sure that my liberal friends on here, didn't try and claim I got it from some right wing source; but if you want to look up what they say, feel free. If you don't like this, what they have to say might send you libs into convulsions, lol!

    Ya know, I've been doing some research on the history of the Middle East. The land was occupied by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other smaller religions. There has been fighting back and forth for each right to claim the land and exist on the land. Everyone can make their own determination throughout time, which group was more justified than the other. In most occupations my determination is that the Christians, Jews, and like religions were the ones that wanted to live a civilized life, and conquered for defensive reasons, but if we discussed each incident individually other people may come to another conclusions.

    BUT

    The fact remains that those of the Islamic religion have gained their territory by the sword. And for some reason the liberals in America have decided that the middle east belongs to those of the Muslim religion. Seems that when Christians or Jews try to claim any area's in the middle east, NOW, the big US has decided that they have no right, yet when Muslim run territories continue to maintain and gain territory by barbarism, America turns a blind eye and claims it is their right.

    Doesn't it appear that the US is supporting those who are violent by stating that we have no right to get involved in the affairs of the Middle East, when Christians and Jews are being slaughtered and need assistance, while involving ourselves to reprimanding Israel when they take any action that might hurt a Muslim citizen or even gain more territory for Jews to spread out, and trying to defame Bibi because he might affect public opinion, and US citizens might understand the struggle of the Jews? And invoking the story of the crusades as if it is the only relevant example of barbarism and it was at the hands of Christians?

    Would it be such a bad thing if the Jew's gained more territory in the Middle East and more of the Middle East was inhabited by those of the Jewish religion or even having gov't's run by jewish people with Western principle?

    Or

    Is it only acceptable for Muslims to own Middle Eastern territory? The Jew's are the intruders! Because the Muslims already won the territory by the sword and now it is set in stone. And it is perfectly righteous for only those of the Muslim religion to continue with the sword.

    What land do people think Christian's and Jew's came from, that they would have any less of a right to exist in the Middle East?
    Where was Jesus born?
    Where did the Jewish tribes originate?
    Who the hell is the United States to decide which religion is allowed to have the upper hand in the Middle East?
    Why are the Jew's not entitled to a safe haven where they are free from religious persecution and slaughter?
    Why is decided that Israel belonged to the Middle Eastern Muslims and not the Middle Eastern Jews?
    Why is it acceptable for Muslims to use their power to live as they choose and enslave who they want, but when Jew's have power, they must stay in their little, (and I mean LITTLE) corner or they are deemed bullies and aggressors.
    Why are only Muslims sanctioned aggressors within the Middle East?
    Why do we say let the Middle East fight it out among themselves when one Muslim sect fights another, but when Middle Eastern Jews are involve and finally get the upper hand we claim they are intruders?
    Why would the US be angry at the Middle Eastern Jew's, if the Jew's of Israel conquered many countries in the Middle East and it became more westernized?
    Why is it okay that Muslim's of Palestine took rule of the area?
    Why is it not okay for the jew's to have a safe haven? Or would Jew's have more legitimacy if they had taken all of palestine opposed to one little area, and before the world decided what religion is to be set in stone, as the religion of Middle Eastern power?
    What people of what religion are entitled to inhabit Palestine? Is it for the US to decide? Or any other nation?
    Why does any nation think they have the right to decide how much land the Jew's are allowed to live on in the Middle East?

    Leave a comment:


  • Imawhosure
    replied
    I know, I know, the crusades were terrible, and Muslims are wonderful! I get it, I really do; at least when listening to some of the people on here. But hey, I always say history teaches all things, and since some want to talk about the crusades (lol) I will give you a much more modern version of the evil that is Islam. Want to check it out before you hold your position?

    http://www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopi...ngenocide.html And oh yes, this had nothing to do with the EVIL UNITED STATES doing anything, sticking their nose anywhere, etc. Wonder why President Obysmal didn't bring it up? Maybe he isn't a student of history, or maybe he wants to insure that you aren't either. And oh yes, it comes from the most liberal rag in the country, the New York Times. I wanted to make sure that my liberal friends on here, didn't try and claim I got it from some right wing source; but if you want to look up what they say, feel free. If you don't like this, what they have to say might send you libs into convulsions, lol!

    Leave a comment:


  • jotathought
    replied
    Originally posted by Danny View Post
    WTF is this thread title? "If he isn't a muslim"? I'll make a thread entitled " If Republicans aren't Nazi's then what are they?". See how seriously you take it.

    Obama's strategy of being VERY careful not to give religious legitimacy to terrorists is the smartest thing he can do. Why can't people of the GOP ilk see this? You wouldnt' want to be blamed for the Westboro Baptist Church assholes would you? I don't think so. So WHY DO YOU BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR A TINY PERCENT OF RADICALS?
    When you state, "A Tiny Percentage of Radicals," what percentage of muslims does this represent?

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    I don't think Obama is stupid, he is just a follower, not a leader. He does what he is told by those around him just as he has done all of his life.
    Too many theories behind his wrong doings. I can choose that theory as easily as any. I'm firm on none. It all seems about right to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    I don't think Obama is stupid, he is just a follower, not a leader. He does what he is told by those around him just as he has done all of his life.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    So the question is, is Obama wise or stupid? Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask if he is wise or unwise. And IMO, he is unwise. But I have this idea in my head that no president is independent. I think they are driven by a greater force, that is in place and new men as they become president just step into that pit. There are contraints placed on any president, and they leave him just enough room to commit folly, to make him look as if he is independent.

    The issue that is made over what he said at this event or that event are mere distractions, but falsely insures americans that the president is independent, while he is walking to the beat of some greater drummer. The oval office is covered on all 4 sides by theater styled curtains, from which powerful men peak out.
    Look, When I said wise or stupid, it was in relation to how he discusses Islam VS how he discusses Christianity. And stupid was the right word for what I was trying to convey. You know we are not discussing his intellectual ability in this thread. Seems that you redirected the conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post

    I understand that reasoning. But would it not hold true if he also bent over backwards to insure he doesn't color all of Christianity with the expressions of a few, (don't know how many people he heard these less then loving words from, but don't think it's a few thousand), out of 2.18 billion Christians.

    Why is he only concerned about not having the religion of Islam being persecuted against for bad actions, but has no concern, to carefully choose his words, so that Christianity is not being disgraced, while influencing public opinion? He must know that his words will cause the persecution of Christians as he is so in tune to how words could cause the persecution of Muslims.

    Is he wise or plain stupid?

    Wise enough to understand how his words could hurt the reputation for Islam.

    And just too stupid to understand his words could hurt the reputation of Christianity, as well.

    Or does he have ulterior motive for his hypocrisy?
    So the question is, is Obama wise or stupid? Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask if he is wise or unwise. And IMO, he is unwise. But I have this idea in my head that no president is independent. I think they are driven by a greater force, that is in place and new men as they become president just step into that pit. There are contraints placed on any president, and they leave him just enough room to commit folly, to make him look as if he is independent.

    The issue that is made over what he said at this event or that event are mere distractions, but falsely insures americans that the president is independent, while he is walking to the beat of some greater drummer. The oval office is covered on all 4 sides by theater styled curtains, from which powerful men peak out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imawhosure
    replied
    Protecting a sect of Islam is noteworthy Blue. I kinda agree with you, but only when I weigh the worst against the bad. Who is worse, North Korea or Iran; and whomever is worse, does that make the remaining country good?

    If you want to tell all of us how bad the US has been in the last 75 years, I will listen to that argument. But, if you want to tell us how good some country or sect is because they are not as bad as somebody else, that is bogus.

    That is like me asking you who was worse, Hitler or Mussolini. Just because one did more atrocities doesn't translate to the other being a great humanitarian.

    No offense, but I personally think you are barking up the wrong tree. Your debate point is more than weak, and you should re-enforce it.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Personally, and of course I could be totally wrong, is that I think Obama bends over backwards to insure he doesn't color all of islam with the actions of a few million, out of 1.5 billion.
    I understand that reasoning. But would it not hold true if he also bent over backwards to insure he doesn't color all of Christianity with the expressions of a few, (don't know how many people he heard these less then loving words from, but don't think it's a few thousand), out of 2.18 billion Christians.

    Why is he only concerned about not having the religion of Islam being persecuted against for bad actions, but has no concern, to carefully choose his words, so that Christianity is not being disgraced, while influencing public opinion? He must know that his words will cause the persecution of Christians as he is so in tune to how words could cause the persecution of Muslims.

    Is he wise or plain stupid?

    Wise enough to understand how his words could hurt the reputation for Islam.

    And just too stupid to understand his words could hurt the reputation of Christianity, as well.

    Or does he have ulterior motive for his hypocrisy?
    Last edited by msc; 04-11-2015, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


    I don't know if you took the time to listen to a real deal muslim who is from the middle east, and gives us the insider look at islam, but here is the link again. Everyone who wants to be well informed on the middle east and islam, the sects, the differences, should watch this interview. You will not get this information from MSM, including FOX. And unless you understand it, you will think wrongly and form invalid opinions out of ignor-ance, that is, ignoring factual sources.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-L626DnAuM
    First I'll address this. Yes, Not only did I take the time to listen to it, I found it so informative that I had my 17 year old watch it with me. I wasn't impressed with Joe, the interviewer, but the Muslim born fellow was quite informative and neutral in his delivery of facts and experience. But I'm getting the feeling that you and I got different things out of it. I see what he said as more of an explanation of how things are. He explained the history and offered information of the opinions of others. He did not condemn nor support drone attacks. He explained how people suffered because of the attacks and also explained that some think it is a necessary evil. He rendered his opinion, yet clearly expressed that he does not believe his opinion to be the righteous one. Don't think he was trying to sway people to believe one way or another. Just offered what he knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Personally, and of course I could be totally wrong, is that I think Obama bends over backwards to insure he doesn't color all of islam with the actions of a few million, out of 1.5 billion. Think about it, if 10 percent of the musliims can be fundamentalized, radicalized, that's still 15 million. If the president of the world (that is what each president is beginning to act like) even says something that can be interpreted as coloring all muslims the same, well, lots of Billy Bob's would take that as being open season on muslims. We saw something similar during ww2 after the japs attacked us and killed us. Japanese americaans were not safe walking our streets, for white americans just saw Japs, the people who had just bombed pearl harbor. This is always conveniently ignored by those that accuse FDR of being racist by putting our Japanese in camps. It killed two birds with one stone. It offered them protection, and it removed a threat of sabotage, which was a real threat during ww2, which most people here were not living then to witness. There were even Hollywood films made about the saboteurs, encouraging americans to keep their lips closed and their eyes open.

    Pres Bush Jr wen tout of his way to make the distinction as well, for it would be irresponsible not to.

    In regards to Obama's words at that event, I thought it was out of place, better left for another time, but it also was the perfect place given the event to remind Christians that their daily behavior and political beliefs do not conform with being a genuine follower of Christ. Pointing out the hypocrisy of some Christians needs to be done everyday imo. We should not expect Christians to act like muslims, for Christianity really is, if taken the way it is supposed to be, a genuine religion of peace, founded around a man who taught peace, not war. The same is not true of Islam. Islam revels in a perceived righteous war, and you even get rewarded for killing those who oppose Islam.

    I don't know if you took the time to listen to a real deal muslim who is from the middle east, and gives us the insider look at islam, but here is the link again. Everyone who wants to be well informed on the middle east and islam, the sects, the differences, should watch this interview. You will not get this information from MSM, including FOX. And unless you understand it, you will think wrongly and form invalid opinions out of ignor-ance, that is, ignoring factual sources.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-L626DnAuM

    Your ten percent of radical Muslims must be getting support from someone. If the other 90% actually opposed them, they would be gone in no time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    My point exactly. We are in agreement with the history.

    I'm still not getting why Obama only speaks of Islam as peaceful and with respect for the religion. Never speaking of these terrorists in relation to the religion.
    YET, again at Easter prayer he brings up that he listens to less than loving expressions by christians, and gets concerned.
    Come on, can't anyone and everyone see that here he is talking about behavior which he claims to be bad and attaches it to Christianity, by calling the people he is concerned about Christians?
    YET, the terrorist who slaughters humans and targets Christians and Jews, are not less than loving expressions by Muslims to be concerned about?

    Have you even once heard him lecture the Muslim community about concerning expressions that he hears from Muslims or more importantly mention the less than loving behaviors by Muslims?

    If it's not because he is a Muslim at heart, then what is it?
    The only other thing I can come up with is that he respects the strong arm which is what he claims to oppose in Americans.

    Can you make sense of it?
    Personally, and of course I could be totally wrong, is that I think Obama bends over backwards to insure he doesn't color all of islam with the actions of a few million, out of 1.5 billion. Think about it, if 10 percent of the musliims can be fundamentalized, radicalized, that's still 15 million. If the president of the world (that is what each president is beginning to act like) even says something that can be interpreted as coloring all muslims the same, well, lots of Billy Bob's would take that as being open season on muslims. We saw something similar during ww2 after the japs attacked us and killed us. Japanese americaans were not safe walking our streets, for white americans just saw Japs, the people who had just bombed pearl harbor. This is always conveniently ignored by those that accuse FDR of being racist by putting our Japanese in camps. It killed two birds with one stone. It offered them protection, and it removed a threat of sabotage, which was a real threat during ww2, which most people here were not living then to witness. There were even Hollywood films made about the saboteurs, encouraging americans to keep their lips closed and their eyes open.

    Pres Bush Jr wen tout of his way to make the distinction as well, for it would be irresponsible not to.

    In regards to Obama's words at that event, I thought it was out of place, better left for another time, but it also was the perfect place given the event to remind Christians that their daily behavior and political beliefs do not conform with being a genuine follower of Christ. Pointing out the hypocrisy of some Christians needs to be done everyday imo. We should not expect Christians to act like muslims, for Christianity really is, if taken the way it is supposed to be, a genuine religion of peace, founded around a man who taught peace, not war. The same is not true of Islam. Islam revels in a perceived righteous war, and you even get rewarded for killing those who oppose Islam.

    I don't know if you took the time to listen to a real deal muslim who is from the middle east, and gives us the insider look at islam, but here is the link again. Everyone who wants to be well informed on the middle east and islam, the sects, the differences, should watch this interview. You will not get this information from MSM, including FOX. And unless you understand it, you will think wrongly and form invalid opinions out of ignor-ance, that is, ignoring factual sources.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-L626DnAuM

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post


    The sect is small, as most of these mystical sects are. All of the killing in all 3 religions came from the orthodox views. Thankfully Christianity and Judaism evolved towards the GOOD. The same doesn't appear to be the fact with Islam. It really is the world's most dangerous religion today, given its demand to live under a particularly barbaric and brutal religious law.
    My point exactly. We are in agreement with the history.

    I'm still not getting why Obama only speaks of Islam as peaceful and with respect for the religion. Never speaking of these terrorists in relation to the religion.
    YET, again at Easter prayer he brings up that he listens to less than loving expressions by christians, and gets concerned.
    Come on, can't anyone and everyone see that here he is talking about behavior which he claims to be bad and attaches it to Christianity, by calling the people he is concerned about Christians?
    YET, the terrorist who slaughters humans and targets Christians and Jews, are not less than loving expressions by Muslims to be concerned about?

    Have you even once heard him lecture the Muslim community about concerning expressions that he hears from Muslims or more importantly mention the less than loving behaviors by Muslims?

    If it's not because he is a Muslim at heart, then what is it?
    The only other thing I can come up with is that he respects the strong arm which is what he claims to oppose in Americans.

    Can you make sense of it?
    Last edited by msc; 04-11-2015, 08:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Originally posted by msc View Post
    If that's so, I stand corrected, but only about the sect. How large is this sect? Never heard of them.

    Let me explain this in another way:

    - Traditional Muslims say: Kill them, stone them, lash them.
    - Traditional Christians say: I don't want to provide one specific service.

    - Yet the Islamic religion is defended by our gov't and promoted as peaceful.
    - While the Christian religion is portrayed as backwards and intolerant, harming the freedoms of others. Our gov't makes laws and reprimands Christians as a whole presenting Christianity as if it is a threat to freedoms of others, and peace.

    - It is wrong to BLAME Islam, because there is a few hundred terrorists within that religion, and many others do not afford their people human rights.
    BUT
    - It is righteous to BLAME Christianity and protest, because the evil members don't want to participate in one type of service, and display Christian symbols that represent peace.

    - Death threats to Christians that state their belief. No big deal made about it by our gov't. No emergency lecture from our president.
    - But, could you imagine if a Muslim store received death threats. Would the president not speak up against it with an emergency lecture, stating that it is wrong, it will not be tolerated, and I will have Holder get to the bottom of this and someone will be arrested. We've seen him take such actions before.

    Now which religion encompasses people that is a threat to humanity and peace. This country is filled with misguided minds and pure stupidity.What the hell are they thinking?

    The sect is small, as most of these mystical sects are. All of the killing in all 3 religions came from the orthodox views. Thankfully Christianity and Judaism evolved towards the GOOD. The same doesn't appear to be the fact with Islam. It really is the world's most dangerous religion today, given its demand to live under a particularly barbaric and brutal religious law.

    Leave a comment:


  • msc
    replied
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    I think Islam has a peaceful sect. The Sufis, who are mystics. Generally its always the mystics in religions that are peaceful. The jews have theirs, the Christians the gnostics and islam the Sufis.
    If that's so, I stand corrected, but only about the sect. How large is this sect? Never heard of them.

    Let me explain this in another way:

    - Traditional Muslims say: Kill them, stone them, lash them.
    - Traditional Christians say: I don't want to provide one specific service.

    - Yet the Islamic religion is defended by our gov't and promoted as peaceful.
    - While the Christian religion is portrayed as backwards and intolerant, harming the freedoms of others. Our gov't makes laws and reprimands Christians as a whole presenting Christianity as if it is a threat to freedoms of others, and peace.

    - It is wrong to BLAME Islam, because there is a few hundred terrorists within that religion, and many others do not afford their people human rights.
    BUT
    - It is righteous to BLAME Christianity and protest, because the evil members don't want to participate in one type of service, and display Christian symbols that represent peace.

    - Death threats to Christians that state their belief. No big deal made about it by our gov't. No emergency lecture from our president.
    - But, could you imagine if a Muslim store received death threats. Would the president not speak up against it with an emergency lecture, stating that it is wrong, it will not be tolerated, and I will have Holder get to the bottom of this and someone will be arrested. We've seen him take such actions before.

    Now which religion encompasses people that is a threat to humanity and peace. This country is filled with misguided minds and pure stupidity.What the hell are they thinking?
    Last edited by msc; 04-10-2015, 05:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X