He remarked that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics
Well, I agree with this much of what he said. :)
If I don't agree with the rest does that make me also demonic? Ya know.....it'd be really hard to see how anyone in their right mind could give this guy any credit, much less, respect - IF I hadn't already been in their shoes with my blind obedience to craiggers and Moneyhands.
Maybe Pat is trying to drum up donations with his bluntness. Many Christians don't really believe in the devil spirit possession thing, but some will take this opportunity to lump all Christians in with the snake handlers because of statements like this. Does anyone really need help understanding that radical Islam is evil? Of course Pat threw in that even "decaffeinated" Islam is not a religion of peace ... which is a little more edgey, though I tend to agree in some ways. The moderates seem much too tolerant of their evil brethren.
To concider if the musulim religion is a religion of peace and harmony or war and division... One only needs to look at the actions of those who are in "leadership" positions and the followers of those who concider themselves devout practioners of there faith...
The actions of the Musulim practioners are how I would define them.
The actions of the Musulim practioners are how I would define them.
Maybe I took this wrong... but that's like judging all Christians based on the actions of Pat Robertson or George Bush...
It's has the most 'followers' of any religion in the world doesn't it? There are far more 'peaceful' Muslims in this world than there are terrorists. Why don't they speak out more (because some do speak out)? I don't know... maybe they fear for their lives as well...
Maybe I took this wrong... but that's like judging all Christians based on the actions of Pat Robertson or George Bush...
It's has the most 'followers' of any religion in the world doesn't it? There are far more 'peaceful' Muslims in this world than there are terrorists. Why don't they speak out more (because some do speak out)? I don't know... maybe they fear for their lives as well...
Every group will have exteremists (idiots)...
There is also a difference in the actions. Such as... The actions are based upon their relegious beliefs, political beliefs, patritoc beliefs etc...
Pat Robertson does not have the "whatever" to cause rioting in the streets, or extreem fanatic behavior in others... At best, he can share his ideas with those who will listen. He has not inspired his followers to kill, riot, cause violence based of some cartoon...
George Bush as Commander and Chief has the political/military authority to send soldiers to various destinations. He also has the duty to protect and defend the Constituation against all enimies both foreign and domestic (This is generic to all Presidents). His relegious views seem to come into play in the issues of abortion and stem cell recearch than Homeland security / Global War on Terror.
Zshot... point taken... but I'm talking about judging by the acts of the minority... or a few... not their ability to kill. Pat Robertson uses his voice as "the voice of Christians" ...and many times so does Bush.
I refuse to "lump" all Muslims into one category. That's very closed minded IMO.
honestly, what do you--any of you--really know about islam? c'mon, be honest.
as for robertson, yeah, he's blunt--if by "blunt" you mean the opposite of "sharp!"
OK "Sprawled Out" ... honestly, what do you really know about what I know about Islam? c'mon, be honest.
as for robertson, he makes a lot of money and is well known and is probably getting young corps babes on the side ...
edited ... yes Tom, they may be afraid, but they are safe as long as they don't speak up ... so much safer for them not to tell on the guys at their mosques that are preparing another attack ... as long as they are killing others, lets not go out of our way to speak up ...
that is probably overstated, but that is sorta my concern ... but what do I really know about Islam? It's not like Iran getting nukes is really a big deal ...
All I know is that I've had a few co-workers who were Muslim and they've been just as appalled as everyone else at the terrorist attacks/actions... and they don't like Iran (or anyone else) having nuclear capabilities (neither do I).
I'm guessing the majority of even Iranian muslims hate the thought of Iran getting nukes. Of the one or two million muslims in the US, I'm sure a relatively small number are terrorists, and a small percentage are aware of terrorist activities. But of the terrorists, almost 100% are muslims ... and most go to mosques regularly. No doubt some mosques are watched carefully, and geiger counters have been used at some. Of course in Iraq, those complaining the most about US targeting mosques were those using them as forts.
It "offends" me that we have a description of the terrorists, yet any profiling is met with screams of racism (more accurately "bigotry"). And doctrinally, I question whether "regular" Islam comes out against violent jihad against infidels under some conditions. Not so much, as far as I can see, though the muslim you or I might know are just decent folks. But then most wayfers were decent folks that thought sex outside their marriage was wrong, only the inner sanctum new the "true doctrine" ... but then that was a cult !
oh... don't get me wrong... I'm more nervous on a flight with folks who fit the terrorist profile than I am on a plane full of old ladies going to vegas to gamble... so yeah, I've got some issues... but I don't want to condemn a whole religion/people...
We've been at war with Moslems, almost continually, since before the inception of our country. After the war for independence, the US Navy was pretty much formed to protect American shipping interests from the Barbary Pirates. That lasted until 1816 or so when the Navy and Marine Corps went to north Africa to weed them out...remember the line "...to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn?
Maybe Galen can tell us when and how the 1897 Winchester pump 12 ga shotgun gained so much favor with Marines in north Africa later.
I'm not defending Pat Robertson or anything, just trying to show in perspective that Moslems have ALWAYS been violent.
I'd be interested to know of any historical similarities involving other religions, particularly Christianity. Admittedly, some groups, under the banner of Christianity have stained that banner, but nothing to compare with Islam that has historically been violent with reckless hate.
He remarked that the outpouring of rage elicited by cartoons "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with."
Robertson also said that "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination."
No, I don't think it started with the Crusades. I think it started with Abraham shagging his wife's handmaid Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael which means "wild foot of a man" and who is the father of the bloody
A-Rabs. Too bad old Abe wasn't a little more patient... :blink:
You have to wonder why some cultures carry the grudge for ever. I mean, the British may not have completely forgiven us for dumping tea in the harbor, but at least they aren't over here blowing up our cars and buildings for revenge.
Even the Mason-Dixon line has quieted down somewhat....
Didn't Issac and Ishmael come back together to bury Abraham? Seems I read that somewhere. Something that is always forgotten. Too radical a concept, I guess.
" For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands." ....
"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."
In this article, the word "crusade" (derived from the Latin word for "cross") in an Islamic context means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched crusades. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.
...raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves, brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women ...
and
Finally, in the Holy Land (i.e., Palestine) itself, the Muslim yoke under the Seljuks had become particularly onerous for the indigenous Christian (and Jewish) population, as well as Christian pilgrims. Both the native and pilgrim populations were subjected to forced conversions, kidnappings, and murder in an atmosphere of overall insecurity for the life and property of non-Muslims.
I sorta skimmed this one, but it seems the most thorough ...
What happened to all those Christians in the "Bible lands" anyway? The original Bible belt was conquered by Mohammed. A Muslim site depicts it this way ... "most of those Christians embraced Islam during the last 14 centuries because Islam delivered what the Bible promised" You might see that differently if you failed to "embrace Islam".
I'm still muddling through some of the other stuff ... but the facts seem clearer all the time ... Islam has never been peaceful, it is a doctrinal problem ... the "Christian" crusades were mostly defensive, and not really doctrinally supported by the Bible. (Of course it was war, and ugly in many ways)
There seems to be a huge propaganda war ... it seems important to become informed. Much of history has already been rewritten ... trying to sort through it all is interesting ... cheers :)
Oh, and are there large numbers of muslims that are currently peaceful? of course ... I'm sorta thinking the more westernized they are, the better. But still, the root of Islam ties them in with some pretty ugly history. Mohammed seems mostly warrior.
And as I have said before, Mohammed married a 9 year old girl called 'Aisha' and 'consumated' the marriage when she turned 11. Stinking paedophile. BIG differn'ce between Mohammed and Jesus doncha' think !
Recommended Posts
Belle
Well, I agree with this much of what he said. :)
If I don't agree with the rest does that make me also demonic?
Ya know.....it'd be really hard to see how anyone in their right mind could give this guy any credit, much less, respect - IF I hadn't already been in their shoes with my blind obedience to craiggers and Moneyhands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Maybe Pat is trying to drum up donations with his bluntness. Many Christians don't really believe in the devil spirit possession thing, but some will take this opportunity to lump all Christians in with the snake handlers because of statements like this. Does anyone really need help understanding that radical Islam is evil? Of course Pat threw in that even "decaffeinated" Islam is not a religion of peace ... which is a little more edgey, though I tend to agree in some ways. The moderates seem much too tolerant of their evil brethren.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
IMO...
To concider if the musulim religion is a religion of peace and harmony or war and division... One only needs to look at the actions of those who are in "leadership" positions and the followers of those who concider themselves devout practioners of there faith...
The actions of the Musulim practioners are how I would define them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Maybe I took this wrong... but that's like judging all Christians based on the actions of Pat Robertson or George Bush...
It's has the most 'followers' of any religion in the world doesn't it? There are far more 'peaceful' Muslims in this world than there are terrorists. Why don't they speak out more (because some do speak out)? I don't know... maybe they fear for their lives as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
Every group will have exteremists (idiots)...
There is also a difference in the actions. Such as... The actions are based upon their relegious beliefs, political beliefs, patritoc beliefs etc...
Pat Robertson does not have the "whatever" to cause rioting in the streets, or extreem fanatic behavior in others... At best, he can share his ideas with those who will listen. He has not inspired his followers to kill, riot, cause violence based of some cartoon...
George Bush as Commander and Chief has the political/military authority to send soldiers to various destinations. He also has the duty to protect and defend the Constituation against all enimies both foreign and domestic (This is generic to all Presidents). His relegious views seem to come into play in the issues of abortion and stem cell recearch than Homeland security / Global War on Terror.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
there is an old adage
pretty is as pretty does
oh and another
if the shoe fits.. well you know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Zshot... point taken... but I'm talking about judging by the acts of the minority... or a few... not their ability to kill. Pat Robertson uses his voice as "the voice of Christians" ...and many times so does Bush.
I refuse to "lump" all Muslims into one category. That's very closed minded IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
honestly, what do you--any of you--really know about islam? c'mon, be honest.
as for robertson, yeah, he's blunt--if by "blunt" you mean the opposite of "sharp!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
not much... just general stuff... I think that's the point!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
OK "Sprawled Out" ... honestly, what do you really know about what I know about Islam? c'mon, be honest.
as for robertson, he makes a lot of money and is well known and is probably getting young corps babes on the side ...
edited ... yes Tom, they may be afraid, but they are safe as long as they don't speak up ... so much safer for them not to tell on the guys at their mosques that are preparing another attack ... as long as they are killing others, lets not go out of our way to speak up ...
that is probably overstated, but that is sorta my concern ... but what do I really know about Islam?
It's not like Iran getting nukes is really a big deal ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
All I know is that I've had a few co-workers who were Muslim and they've been just as appalled as everyone else at the terrorist attacks/actions... and they don't like Iran (or anyone else) having nuclear capabilities (neither do I).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm guessing the majority of even Iranian muslims hate the thought of Iran getting nukes. Of the one or two million muslims in the US, I'm sure a relatively small number are terrorists, and a small percentage are aware of terrorist activities. But of the terrorists, almost 100% are muslims ... and most go to mosques regularly. No doubt some mosques are watched carefully, and geiger counters have been used at some. Of course in Iraq, those complaining the most about US targeting mosques were those using them as forts.
It "offends" me that we have a description of the terrorists, yet any profiling is met with screams of racism (more accurately "bigotry"). And doctrinally, I question whether "regular" Islam comes out against violent jihad against infidels under some conditions. Not so much, as far as I can see, though the muslim you or I might know are just decent folks. But then most wayfers were decent folks that thought sex outside their marriage was wrong, only the inner sanctum new the "true doctrine" ... but then that was a cult !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh... don't get me wrong... I'm more nervous on a flight with folks who fit the terrorist profile than I am on a plane full of old ladies going to vegas to gamble... so yeah, I've got some issues... but I don't want to condemn a whole religion/people...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I agree with him. Anybody who'd kill over a cartoon is just plain nuts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well, in this case, I would say that it takes one (Pat) to know one (the Muslim freaks).
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Nevermind...thought better of leaving my rant up here.
Edited by CoolWatersLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
We've been at war with Moslems, almost continually, since before the inception of our country. After the war for independence, the US Navy was pretty much formed to protect American shipping interests from the Barbary Pirates. That lasted until 1816 or so when the Navy and Marine Corps went to north Africa to weed them out...remember the line "...to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn?
Maybe Galen can tell us when and how the 1897 Winchester pump 12 ga shotgun gained so much favor with Marines in north Africa later.
I'm not defending Pat Robertson or anything, just trying to show in perspective that Moslems have ALWAYS been violent.
I'd be interested to know of any historical similarities involving other religions, particularly Christianity. Admittedly, some groups, under the banner of Christianity have stained that banner, but nothing to compare with Islam that has historically been violent with reckless hate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I agree with this. Too bad the Crusades failed...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
ya think maybe that's where it all started? (the crusades)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The Moslem perspective ~~~
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
No, I don't think it started with the Crusades. I think it started with Abraham shagging his wife's handmaid Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael which means "wild foot of a man" and who is the father of the bloody
A-Rabs. Too bad old Abe wasn't a little more patient... :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
You have to wonder why some cultures carry the grudge for ever. I mean, the British may not have completely forgiven us for dumping tea in the harbor, but at least they aren't over here blowing up our cars and buildings for revenge.
Even the Mason-Dixon line has quieted down somewhat....
Didn't Issac and Ishmael come back together to bury Abraham? Seems I read that somewhere. Something that is always forgotten. Too radical a concept, I guess.
Edited by topoftheworldLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
" For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands." ....
"That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense."
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
That one is must read ...
In this article, the word "crusade" (derived from the Latin word for "cross") in an Islamic context means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched crusades. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.
http://www.answeringislam.org/Authors/Arla...es_timeline.htm
...raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Many thousands of non-Muslim captives were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves, brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women ...
and
Finally, in the Holy Land (i.e., Palestine) itself, the Muslim yoke under the Seljuks had become particularly onerous for the indigenous Christian (and Jewish) population, as well as Christian pilgrims. Both the native and pilgrim populations were subjected to forced conversions, kidnappings, and murder in an atmosphere of overall insecurity for the life and property of non-Muslims.
I sorta skimmed this one, but it seems the most thorough ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4467
What happened to all those Christians in the "Bible lands" anyway? The original Bible belt was conquered by Mohammed. A Muslim site depicts it this way ... "most of those Christians embraced Islam during the last 14 centuries because Islam delivered what the Bible promised" You might see that differently if you failed to "embrace Islam".
I'm still muddling through some of the other stuff ... but the facts seem clearer all the time ... Islam has never been peaceful, it is a doctrinal problem ... the "Christian" crusades were mostly defensive, and not really doctrinally supported by the Bible. (Of course it was war, and ugly in many ways)
There seems to be a huge propaganda war ... it seems important to become informed. Much of history has already been rewritten ... trying to sort through it all is interesting ... cheers :)
Oh, and are there large numbers of muslims that are currently peaceful? of course ... I'm sorta thinking the more westernized they are, the better. But still, the root of Islam ties them in with some pretty ugly history. Mohammed seems mostly warrior.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
And as I have said before, Mohammed married a 9 year old girl called 'Aisha' and 'consumated' the marriage when she turned 11. Stinking paedophile. BIG differn'ce between Mohammed and Jesus doncha' think !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.