I SLAM Islam the and the False Prophet
Posted in the Nashville Forum
#1 Aug 25, 2012
At the 3:40 point of this AT video entitled "Obama Promoting Islam," President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama says, "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace."
Saying "that Islam embodied a religion of peace, fairness and tolerance," Obama then commented "that the religion was being 'distorted' by a few extremists." He made that statement in Mumbai, India, on November 7, 2010, at St. Xavier's College. In the irony department, St. Xavier's College is a short distance from Chhatrapati Shivaji railroad terminal, where, in November 2008, Islamic terrorists killed 173 people and injured 308 people.
When asked by a St. Xavier's student, "What is your take or opinion about jihad?" Obama stumbled (I guess he was sans teleprompter), then continued, "Well..." Then he paused. "You know, uh..." He paused again, then, leaning on a clichÚ about the "Great Religions of the World, " said:
The phrase jihad has a lot of meaning within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations, but I will say that first Islam is one of the world's great religions. More than a billion people practise [sic] Islam and an overwhelming majority view their obligations to a religion that reaffirms peace, fairness, tolerance. I think all of us recognise [sic] that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted by violence.
Further, Ethel C. Fenig said at AT in September 2009, in her article, "Islam, a religion of peace?": "While President Barack Obama (D) was busy praising Islam as a religion of peace worthy of "mutual interest and mutual respect" to foster engagement at a dinner in honor of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan[.]"
There can be little doubt that Obama considers Islam a religion of peace.
So, with Obama's thoughts and actions as a backdrop, let's see what leaders of Islam have said and done lately:
In April 2010, in the United Kingdom, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic radical, said, "You can't say that Islam is a religion of peace, because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam." He also said, "The Koran is full of, you know, jihad is the most talked about duty in the Koran other than tawhid - belief. Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting." Choudary, by the way, has also praised the 9/11 attackers.
In August 2012, Hamas leader Sheik Ahmad Bahr, on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, said, "... if the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty incumbent upon every Muslim, male or female." Bahr continued, "Oh, Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters, and the Americans and their supporters. Oh, Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one."
The Holy Month of Ramadan began on the evening of Thursday, July 19, 2012, and ended on the evening of Saturday, August 18, 2012. It was a time for Muslims to purify their souls, refocus their attention on God, and practice self-sacrifice. Muslims worldwide spend their daylight hours fasting, and were supposed to re-evaluate their lives in light of Islamic guidance, to refrain (sawm) from evil actions.
On August 18, 2012, in Sanaa, Yemen, at least 20 people died as al-Qaeda was suspected of attacking a Yemeni intelligence headquarters building. That coordinated attack came on the last day of Ramadan.
But let's be fair, as Obama likes to say. George W. Bush, while he was president, also said that Islam is a religion of peace. In November 2002, Bush said, "Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."
Islam may, indeed, be a peaceful religion, but recent actions suggest otherwise. If there are billions of peaceful Muslims, then they had better clean up Islam's act. And they had better act immediately.
#2 Aug 25, 2012
Christians like you have killed tens of million more people for no reason in the name of their god. So go shame your own..
#3 Aug 26, 2012
Only a fool uses "guilt by association" as a rebuttal. I did not see anything in the article that mentioned that Beatty was a Christian. Islam is a religion for LACK of a better word of slavery and death. So be it for all of its followers.
Do you actually know what Selah means are you one of Mohammed followers who just merely copies the Hebrew texts and call them their own. Mohammed beyond being a pederast was a plagiarizer just like MLK.
#4 Aug 26, 2012
Can the United States seriously be bending over backwards for a mass murderer?
There is something peculiar in this case, again. The first instance was the omission of any reference to Islam or the Muslim chants of the murderer as he killed 13 people and wounded others at Fort Hood.
Now we get the undue delay from non-Army regulation facial hair -- in short, the beard. Growing it against Army regulations. So Hasan is still considered "in the Army," meaning that, unbelievably, Nadal Hassan is still being paid! What does one have to do to get suspended without pay?
And why this courtesy of letting Hasan enjoy the protections of both the Army and his religion, when they are in conflict? He can't; he shouldn't have it both ways.
If he wants the beard, the religion, and all their legal trappings, he should be dismissed from the Army. If he wishes to enjoy the protection -- and pay -- of the Army, he should be forced to conform to its regulations. There are provisions for nonconsensual hair removal in the military. Why are they not invoked? Who is scared of whom here?
Suddenly, Hasan's faith trumps his obligations as a member of the military. It is time to declare who you are, exactly. You cannot enjoy the protections of each. Are you Army or Islam?
Why does this man enjoy such special status? Why are the religious facts of this case so guarded and coddled? What is going on behind the scenes? Someone made the previous call to sanitize the initial report of any reference to Islam. Now we get the ridiculous delay over some facial hair accommodation based on just the religion that was not mentioned in the official report.
There is a conflict here. The religion was not an issue for the crime, but it seems suddenly important in his treatment and defense. What gives?
The pendulum that is political correctness has hit the wall. Does anyone wonder what the 13 families think of the beard?
#5 Aug 26, 2012
#6 Aug 26, 2012
My name is Selah. Are you also a name hater? You say nothing about Christians who are clearly behind what is written above. I am not a Muslim. I have no affinity for Islam. I have disdain for people who use hatred to win political elections. The wealthy and socialists have each taken hate and fear as their most powerful tool. They keep people mesmerized by the myth that there are good and evil politicians. Christians continue to kill and people like you can't get out of your own way.
#7 Aug 26, 2012
It was a legitimate question which you failed to answer. Some names have meaning some do not. Give us a recent example of Christians killing anyone? That argument is just "bravo sierra". I can give you literally hundreds of examples of Muslims killing Christians today! Certainly in the last years, in the last ten years in the last 100 years. Yet you have to stretch the argument to find adherents of true Christianity who have murdered others for 100 virgins or some other carnal delight.
Of course you don't have any examples as your arguments are as vacant and ill defined as they seem. Merely regurgitation of TV media bias based upon nothing but vain supposition. Try to find another post in which you may try to contribute rather than merely add contradiction and foolishness.
#8 Aug 26, 2012
Selah, really? I doubt it but how about providing an example of Christians killing people. You simply cannot because they do not exist. On the other hand, I can give you literally hundreds of examples today of Muslims killing Christians for the value of 100 virgins or some other seemingly other carnal pleasure.
Your assumption that Christians kill others cannot be validated because it simply does not exist. However, I can show you plenty of examples of liberals who make vacant and ill defined claims who are guilty of the murder of abortion. It is murder not done in the name of a faith except that of convenience.
Why don't you find a post dealing with some vacant issue to which you can merely contribute contradiction as you have not basis for any other method of argumentation.
#9 Aug 26, 2012
In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Ut°ya island. As a result of hi s attacks, 151 people were injured, and 77 killed. On August 24, he was found to be sane by a panel of five judges and, as a result, he was given the maximum sentence allowed by Norwegian law of 21 years of permanent detention. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500 page manifesto detailing that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader." In the manifesto he spews hate much like you. You are simple person with simple thoughts. The Bible is full of parables about people who think like you. Christ described you many times as did the prophets and Rabbis.
In every corner of there are people killing in the name of Christ.
#10 Aug 26, 2012
This individual was on a Quest to rid Norway for the influence of multiculturalism and ISLAM. He did not represent Christianity nor acted upon any decree or charge from any Christian Church.
Your use of this character is indicative of the deceit and dishonesty so representative of liberal thought. It's okay to kill unborn children but yet you oppose the catholic church and other moral entities who attempt to stop the "slaughter of the innocents" through abortion, or choice. But Islam is okay too!
Liberal philosophy for lack of a better word is Swiss cheese of a confused and disproportionate mind. God help you and your soul!
#11 Aug 26, 2012
Two successive administrations now have sought to appease Muslims by minimizing the threat from Islamists. Indeed, science has now been enlisted in that effort. Early stimulus came from the White House.
Hours after 9/11, a Republican president allowed a host of Saudi elites to flee the U.S. by chartered aircraft before the blood was dry at the World Trade Center. Never mind that most of the Manhattan suicide martyrs were Saudis. The political cue then was meant for domestic and foreign consumption; to wit, America would not hold passive aggressors, sponsor-nations, or Islamic propaganda accountable for the atrocities of "extremists."
From the beginning, the majority of Muslims were anointed "moderates," on the authority of an asserted conclusion. Concurrently, fellaheen danced in the streets of Arabia. No matter; blame for the terror threat was still confined to specific non-government agents like al-Qaeda or the Taliban. By fiat, Islamic terrorism was fenced as isolated criminal phenomena with local motives; in short, militant jihad was represented as a perversion of, not a tenet of, Islamic theology or Muslim politics.
This politically correct illusion was reinforced by an Obama administration in a series of forays into the ummah, where the American president declared unequivocally that America, and NATO by extension, is not at war with Islam or Muslims. Never mind that NATO or American troops might be killing Muslims in four -- or is it five?-- separate venues. "We are not at war!" was the party line. And never mind that Obama has yet to visit Israel as president.
Less well-known is the "independent" science which now backfills or rationalizes the political Esperanto of the last decade. A RAND Corporation report, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qai'da," is an example. Notice the assumption embedded in the title: "counter," not defeat. The body of the report is devoted to asserting that terror (a military tactic) is best addressed by political, not military means. Separating war, an amalgam of tactics and strategy, from politics is not an assumption that Churchill or Eisenhower would have made. A politically correct worldview turns logic on its head; tactics are confused with strategy.
The RAND report ignores the larger strategic phenomena of violent jihad bis saif and protected Islamist hate-mongering. But the bottom line of this "systematic" analysis is the most revealing: "Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors." Such assertions are a kind of strategic masochism, not science -- not even common sense.
How the West views Islam is more important then how Islamists act -- or see themselves? By such logic, Arizona sheriffs might be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan instead of the U.S. Marines. And by such logic, where might the holy warriors, if caught, be tried -- lower Manhattan? Treating terror as crime allows the lazy analyst with an agenda to dismiss the political implications of Islamism.
Another RAND paper on another recent South Asia massacre, entitled "Lessons of Mumbai," is an even better example of cooked books -- a case where analysis and credibility are undone by evidence ignored.
The Mumbai attack was unique in two respects: a small Jewish center was targeted, the occupants were slaughtered...and the hotel hostages were then screened for religious affiliation -- again, seeking Jews. It's a safe bet that none of the Mumbai killers were ever stopped at an Israeli checkpoint or lost a building lot in east Jerusalem. This attack was planned and executed with motives removed from the usual; the India/Pakistan rift or the Israel/Fatah impasse. Mumbai was clearly motivated, in part, by a strain of virulent, contagious, and global anti-Semitism. No mention of this appears in "Lessons of Mumbai's" "key judgments."
#12 Aug 26, 2012
The recent terror attack against a religious school in Toulouse, France is a macabre echo of Mumbai. A rabbi and four young Jewish children were shot at point-blank range by Mohamed Merah, a home-grown Arab terrorist of Moroccan origin. Let's assume for sake of argument that Israeli intransigence is the source of Muslim anger. How does blowing a little girl's brains out advance the "two state solution"?
The global bloom of anti-Semitism since the turn of the 21st century is no accident. Those who ignore it, especially scientists at places like RAND, make it possible. Ironically, many of RAND's most eminent researchers are or have been Jewish.
(This Mumbai report also reinforces suspicions about non-profit excess. "Lessons of Mumbai" is a mere 25 pages long, yet lists ten [sic] authors -- an average of two and a half pages per analyst. Makes you wonder how many scientists are required to screw in light bulbs in Santa Monica. Clearly, featherbedding is not restricted just to government operations.)
Some recent RAND national security analysis may actually qualify as apologetics. The 2010 paper entitled "Would-be Warriors" analyzes the incidence of terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11. The paper actually ends with the assumptions, concluding:
There is no evidence [sic] that America's Muslim community is becoming more radical. America's psychological vulnerability is on display...panic is the wrong message to send.
"No evidence" -- or none that RAND can detect from the sands of Santa Monica? If sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies didn't connect the dots before 9/11, while suicide bombers were training in America, RAND's statistical assurances ring more than a little hollow. Islamic terror didn't begin with the barbarisms in lower Manhattan, in any case. And assertions about psychological vulnerability or "panic" are straw men or worse. Who panicked in the wake of the Twin Towers atrocity? Indifference or political apathy, maybe, but surely not panic.
And on U.S. Muslim radicalization, clearly RAND statisticians rarely audit student sentiment at any urban "occupy" rallies or any California campus when an Israeli speaker appears. Nor does the RAND analysis account for the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) or the fact that this home-grown political movement was recently hijacked by radical Muslim American bigots. Anti-Semitism is ever the canary in the geo-strategic coal mine. The NBPP's most recent outrage was to threaten to burn the city of Detroit at a city council meeting.
#13 Aug 26, 2012
In the interest of fairness, we should point out that other non-profits -- Pew Research Center, for example -- also fail to account for the sea change in the very visible American Black Panthers. Pew claims to be non-partisan, but apparently that doesn't rule out political correctness. Indeed, with modern pollsters and sociologists, American Muslim groups like the Panthers and the Nation of Islam seem to enjoy a double-immunity of race and religion. Somehow such groups are, at the same time, Islamic...but not Muslim.
The growth of radical Islam in African-American communities is complemented by a surge in prisons nationwide. Congress and public television seem to have access to prison data, but non-profits like RAND and Pew apparently do not work in those neighborhoods.
The creation of veiled apologetics is not as worrisome as the pervasive misuse of such "scientific" analysis. Part of the problem may lie with endowments. Like more than a few major universities, RAND courts Arab or Muslim goodwill for the same reason why Willie Sutton frequented banks. That's where the money is.
Attempts to curry Arab favor are underwritten by a priori beliefs about Muslim "moderation." Assumptions about what Muslims believe may make terror possible, providing a permanent rationalization -- a kind of laissez passer for militants.
Today, RAND has one of the richest research nest eggs outside Harvard yard. And clearly, the designation "non-profit" is an oxymoron. The more appropriate designation would be "untaxable" -- for reasons yet to be justified. Successful think-tanks may be a lot of things, but like wealthy universities, they are not "charities" by any stretch of logic.
Recent government-sponsored national security research has reversed the poles in the "non-profit" equation. Think-tanks are richer, and government sponsors are going broke. If quality of analysis is the return on government-sponsored research, national security research is nearing some kind of strategic default.
Financial success has allowed think-tanks like RAND to diversify the study agenda and expand their physical plants. Yet the ideas of geographic isolation, and keeping politics at a distance, have been jettisoned with a vengeance. Beyond the original site at Santa Monica, RAND now has offices in Virginia (near the Pentagon), Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Mexico, England, Belgium, Qatar, the UAE, and Abu Dhabi.
For objective national security analysis, the last three locales are the most worrisome. Hard to believe that systems analysis or scientific candor will put petro-dollars or Islamic theocrats at risk. Call it the Ellsberg legacy.
While the overall cast of RAND Corporation national security research is cautious and in many cases politically correct, the occasional old hand still puts mustard on his fastball. Jim Quinlivan wrote an essay in the RAND Review (summer 2003), based on statistical analysis, that suggested that under-manned American excursions against insurgents or terrorists in dar al Islam were bound to end badly -- using strict military measures of effectiveness. Unfortunately, such voices are seldom endorsed or underlined with corporate authority.
The Quinlivan essay was written shortly after 9/11, when "kinetic" solutions were all the rage; his paper flew in the face of the prevailing political winds. More recent RAND reports, as discussed above, tack with the prevailing political winds.
The early rhetoric from President Bush categorized the Manhattan attacks as "acts of war." But since then, the Bush and Obama administrations, and government-sponsored research, take great pains to confuse the issue with criminality -- and policies where victory over Islamism is never a goal or an option.
First, there was the Iraq distraction, a theater that had little to do with worldwide terror or Islamism, and then came a period of dithering over Afghanistan, the so-called "war of necessity."
#14 Aug 26, 2012
You, my friend, can not get out of your own way. Of course he didn't represent Christianity. He is insane. And people like Bin Laden and all other jihadists are not? You have any idea how many militias there are within an hour of Franklin? Ever listen to a short wave radio? Ever talk to a Muslim about how they regard terrorism? Ever talk to a Muslim at all? I think not. You are a simple minded, ignorant, sheep and you'll likely never be anything else.
#15 Aug 26, 2012
Does that mean you won't go all the way on our first date? What a silly bunt!
#16 Aug 28, 2012
Maybe its just Moses.....who's plagiarism of Egyptian folklore created both religions....who might be messing with you. Just saying.......Maybe....
Oh Yeah and the Holy Bible which has been used to justify slavery, war, torture, economic poverty, and,you know, the long list of Hippocrates over the last 1600+ years.
Both religions have killed enough. Can we not just stop all the senseless murders for so called peaceful religions. Ridiculous....
#17 Aug 28, 2012
Can't you just hear this Anti-Christian bigot singing "onward liberal idiots?"
Moses, since you missed Sunday school because your parents were either absent, drunk, or apathetic varied dramatically from Egyptian theology in the concept and belief in one Almighty God. Hebrew inscriptions are completely different from Egyptian writing and theology.
The bible like all such great documents has been twisted to accomplish great architecture, commerce, legal systems, health and sanitary statues. In the wrong hands specifically those seeking self-promotion and monetary gain had perverted the word of God to do evil.
Islam does not claim to be the inspired word of God. Rather the amalgamation of saying reported to Mohammad by his scribes and stories about Mohammad. Islam literally means "recite" it does not mean peace.
Islam is intrinsically evil and the nonsensical raving of a lunatic or possessed mind.
Since: Jan 12
#18 Aug 29, 2012
I had a turkey sandwich today. It was delicious.
#19 Aug 29, 2012
What did you say? I am sorry I was referring to my 36 versions of the Holy Bible. You know that sacred book that was put together by Rich, power hungry Romans in the 4th Century. Trying to keep their beloved EMPIRE together. It didn't work did it? Might be because Christians in the 3rd Century called Jesus "GOD". That is who they believed to be "GOD" and worshiped him accordingly. Or maybe because the real written teachings of Jesus were discarded away by those Roman Church leaders. You know the gospels that were his actual teachings. Like when he said "If man Tell's you the heavens are in the sky and you believe him then the birds will go to heaven and you will not". There are entire Gospels that have quoted Jesus and his disdain for the what the religious leaders created in a so called Church. You do know that when Jesus returns and "He breaks the seven seals of the seven church's" you do not belong to one and none of them exist in this Constitutional Republic of ours. It's also in the Bible that when you die you stay here on Earth forever waiting on his return. That means when you die you do not go to heaven or hell. Do not attempt to go head to head with someone who actually knows what is in the Bible, what should be in the Bible and the other aspects of History, not the written history from the Rich people.
Religion was created to allow men to control spirituality and profit from it and they have for longer than the Bible has existed. The same is for Islam. Power, money and control, all stems from self-centeredness. The root of mankind's problems.
Since: Jan 12
#20 Aug 29, 2012
Religion is a beautiful political tool. Don't wanna die? Perfect! You'll live forever after you die and all of the people who did bad things to you will suffer forever. Are those in power unfair and oppressive? Don't worry about it. you don't have to do a thing. Let them have their power now. It will surely be taken care of. It truly is the opiate of the masses.
Add your comments below
|TN Tennessee Hunting Rights Amendment (Oct '10)||59 min||The InfoWar||8,616|
|I still love you...||1 hr||Wtf||3|
|TN Should state mandate immunizations? New require... (May '11)||1 hr||TheRealZeke||9,316|
|No Refusal DUI Checkpoints||15 hr||Ben||4|
|Hottest local news anchor.... (Feb '11)||23 hr||dimes||1,502|
|Clay Travis G O N E !!!!||Fri||Jim Haystern||1|
|Adding therapy to meds may speed depression rec...||Fri||robina||2|
Find what you want!
Search Nashville Forum Now