I am not clear, why do you hate/fear muslims?
Posted By: MAX on 2008-10-10
In Reply to:
history shows us many atrocities have been done in the name of people's 'religions' so what makes muslims the target...I see just as much intolerance and hatred right here, in church. ?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If your idea of earth is fear, hate, and misery...no thanks!
The people who are creeped out by Obama and the people who support him are probably scared of their own shadows and prefer to wallow in misery!
The MSNBC crew does incite hate and fear
I guess you don't listen to them, or do you think it's okay for them to incite hate and fear, and cutting down everyone, disrespecting thousands upon thousands of Americans. They don't report objectively anymore. They've turned it into a station of hate and bitterness. Can't understand why because their fave won, but guess that's not good enough. Now they feel they have the right to condemn and belittle anyone who doesn't agree with them, which happens to be over 50% of the country (69M may have voted for him, but 234M did not - if you minus the people not eligible to vote that still leaves 174M that did not vote for him). MSNBC has turned their station into a huge political hate and nasty machine. They are disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Rush - I don't care for him and don't listen to him regularly like I used to but catch him every once in awhile. While I don't agree with some of what he has to say, he is just telling the truth trying to get people to wake up. He certainly does not incite violence. Neither does Michael Savage. Why in the world would you consider Savage republican? He is an independent and he is harsh to both sides. Unless you consider anyone who questions what is going on in the current administration a republican. There are plenty of democrats who do not like what is happening in their party but they are still democrats.
I don't think anyone on either side should be banned. If I don't like them I don't listen and I change the channel. Anyone who has the elitist attitude of who should be banned and who shouldn't ought to move to Cuba or some other communist/socialist country. I'm sure they would be welcome there. Here in America last I knew we were a free country, even though the current admin is working their hardest and fastest to change that.
Fear Mongerer? Obama? McCain and Cheney were fear mongerer
and they STILL ARE !
A *fear tactic* . . .What is to fear in a
bother you!
English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate.
x
Oh I see....you hate small town folks, you hate Christians...
and you hate the military...you are also coming into real clear view.
Muslims take over
They will take over soon enough. This country will be part of the European union, which is the same thing as socialism. They will all burn in Hades with knashing of teeth. Obama is the antichrist.
Muslims
Muslims do not worship our God, the ones our forefathers worshipped, the God referred to in "one nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance. They don't believe the Bible. That's why it is seen as a false religion. I'm not the OP...just saying that's why most people see Muslim as not a good thing.
Not all Muslims
in the Middle and Far East are terrorists.
You are also stereotyping.
Sure O's blood drained from his face!
But the Iranian people did not launch this missile. You are again talking about terrorists, not moderates.
I think we all know we are not talking about all Muslims. SM
Your attempt to characterize and our concerns as being against all Muslims is typical but wrong. In the instance that the radical Islamics use jihad, it most certainly means Holy war. Can we focus on that certain faction of Islamics instead of broadening the scope of things to a realm we are not addressing?
Christians do that, not Muslims.
You state regarding Obama...He's linked with Ahmedinejad and therefore if he gets elected they will have an open invitation to come and get us and turn everyone into a muslim.
The last time I checked, it was the Christians who were trying to make everyone accept Jesus Christ as their savior and convert to them Christianity. Personally, I have never heard of Muslims trying to force anyone to believe as they do.
Yes, during a time when all NON-MUSLIMS
xx
Mccain wants to win over the Muslims too -
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081010/NEWS0302/81010015/-1/rss01
Read paragraph 7 - they both want those votes - not just Obama.
"all Muslims"???
case in point.
No more valid than if someone were to say "all Christians."
There are Christians who are truly loving, inclusive people, and there are narrow, exclusionary, fringe extremists about whom Jesus would never stop puking.
I think you should take another look at Colin Powell's interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8&feature=user
Exactly. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists. nm
nm
I am sure that we all know that not all Muslims are terrorists.
Why is that anyone who does not support Obama is automatically a bigot who hates everyone who is not a white Christian? And then I am called narrow minded--interesting!
It's more how Muslims view us
They see any non-Muslim as an infidel. THAT is the problem.
Moderate Muslims
The majority of the Middle Eastern people are moderate and not anti-American. And Obama is winning more and more over.
Only the terrorists are anti-American.
You have to study history, update yourself and do not put everybody into the same pot and stereotyping.
Why do you single out Muslims?
I quote from your post:
'If you go back in history, the Muslim religion has ALWAYS been a religion of violence and this has been going on since the Crusades and before.'
Who slaughtered whom during the Crusades?
Who slaughtered the Palestinians in Gaza in the year of 2008?
And there are hundreds of other examples.
So we have to pacify Muslims so much
that our own president cannot comment on how horrible it was for a soldier to be gunned down just because he was going to Cairo in a couple of days? Pathetic. Just because he is trying to kiss butt here....doesn't mean that he should throw our own Americans under the bus like that. This a man who was going to fight for our country and was gunned down and our president said nothing about it. That in itself is a shame. It just goes to show that Obama is more interested in making pals with Muslims than he is about the people willing to fight and die for our own country. Pretty sad really.
Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
x
I prefer Muslims to Christians!
I find the Muslims I know to be well educated, polite, family oriented, and very gentle people. I cannot say the same for the Christians I have met. This is based on my own personal experience, so there is no need for flaming from the right-wing Christian fanatics.
Moderate Muslims are not terrorists.
I find it interesting that you twisted President Obama's words from "winning over moderate Muslims" to "winning over terrorists." How very "pro-American" of you!
I am talking about moderate muslims
in the Middle and Far East, not about Muslims who live here in the US!
The Muslims who are in the Middle East have been won over by OBAMA.
Relgious Freaks? Do you mean Muslims?
Or is it only OK to bash Christians in America?
The number of abortions due to rape is so minescule compared to the massive quantities by women who are just too plain lazy or stupid to get themselves on birth control, it's a total joke. Add into that, the inordinate number of women who cry 'rape' when they actually just got wasted and laid, and there's a whole lot of unnecessary suffering going on.
Here's a compromise - I'll support morning-after pills for rape victims - and you support SELF-CONTROL. Sadly, in America these days, self-control is as foreign an idea as thrift and personal responsibility.
that's great Muslims believe Jesus was a
messenger etc. etc. But Jesus was not a "messenger" he was the Holy, SINLESS, son of God sent to this earth to die for ALL that they may have salvation for all who believe. He his alive and on the throne. The Muslim "god" is dead and in the grave. Christianity is the only faith where the God is not in the grave but is alive forever.
Why wouldn't I love Muslims?
Muslim is just a name..... it's those that have believed in a hateful murderous cult that I don't agree with. Christ says to love even my enemies, so I will. If you understood that, you would understand that is because there is always that hope that they will change their thoughts and ways and turn to Christ and away from all their hate. But, of course, that's hard to do when they have been taught since early childhood for hours on end to hate everyone that isn't them. And for that, I would certainly think prayer for them is more important than ever!
On the other hand, that doesn't mean we roll over and let those that hate us and wish us harm attack our country and not expect retribution. Is that your belief? There are many fighting for this country that do not consider themselves religious at all; they just know wrong and hate when they see it....
too bad you don't!
Christians are just as evil as Muslims.
X
Uh, really???? Cuz these Muslims seem to think jihad means Holy War. SM
I mean, they are actually saying that is what it means, so maybe you better go and educate them! Oh those silly Muslim terrorist guys don't even know what jihad means!
Somalia Islamic militants call for jihad
By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN, Associated Press WriterSat Dec 23, 8:55 AM ET
Somalia's Islamic militants Saturday called on foreign Muslim fighters to join their holy war against Ethiopian troops after days of fighting killed hundreds of people and threatened to engulf this volatile region.
Muslims are brothers and help each other, Sheik Yusuf Indahaadde, national security chairman for the Council of Islamic Courts, said in the capital, Mogadishu. We have a right to call our brothers and sisters to help us in this holy war, he said.
The Islamic forces have declared they want to bring the country under Quranic rule and vowed to drive out troops from neighboring Ethiopia, a largely Christian nation that is providing military support to Somalia's U.N.-backed government. Ethiopia denies its forces are fighting, saying it has sent only military trainers.
The clashes could mean a major conflict in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia, which has one of the largest armies in the region, and its bitter rival, Eritrea, could use Somalia as the ground for a proxy war. While Ethiopia backs the internationally recognized government, Eritrea backs the Islamic movement.
In Kismayo, a strategic seaport captured from the government by Islamic militia in September, residents saw several foreign Arab fighters disembarking from ships this week.
Hundreds of people have been killed since fighting broke out Tuesday. Sporadic gunfire and shelling could be heard Friday around Baidoa, the government's only stronghold, although fighting appeared to taper off. But four Ethiopian attack helicopters and about 20 tanks were seen headed for battle, witnesses and a government official said.
Thousands of Somalis have fled their homes as troops loyal to the two-year-old interim administration fought Islamic fighters who had advanced on Baidoa, about 140 miles northwest of Mogadishu. Islamic militiamen control Mogadishu along with most of southern Somalia.
Special forces who are highly trained in guerrilla warfare are now ready to attack Ethiopians, wherever they are in Somalia, Sheik Ibrahim Shukri Abuu-Zeynab, a spokesman for the Islamic movement, told The Associated Press.
He also said the Islamists late Friday peacefully captured the Ethiopian border town of Tiyeglow, which is believed to be a main entry point for troops from the neighboring nation.
Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi vowed Saturday that his government will defend the people it is responsible for and Somali sovereignty. He called on the Islamic fighters to return to negotiations.
They will be responsible for any consequences that may result from rejecting our call, he said.
Government officials said more than 600 Islamic fighters had been killed during four days of clashes. Islamic militiamen said they had killed around 400 Ethiopians and government fighters. Neither claim could be independently confirmed.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on both sides to cease the hostilities immediately and to resume the peace talks, his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said in a statement released late Friday.
Somalia has not had an effective government since warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991, plunging the country into chaos.
___
The point is, these Muslims say a Jihad is a Holy War. SM
I just wanted to point that out. I just don't think in these times that they mean it any other way, no matter what the other definitions are.
do Muslims not pay taxes? they are part of our country - like it or not...
x
Moderate Muslims aren't the terrorists...(sm)
He's pointing out the distinction between the two instead of labeling all Muslims as terrorists and pi$$ing off the whole middle east like the Bush admin did, and like you just did with your post.
Moderate muslims by definition have already been "won over." So what exactly is
Obama's strategy here?
A moderate muslim is a muslim who is willing to coexist peacefully with people of other faiths and who are comfortable with the democracy of the U.S. So you see, they don't need to be "won over." To the fundamentalist muslim, a moderate muslim is a sell out who has watered down their faith.
Basically what Obama is doing is elevating himself to the benevolent peacemaker, declaring he is going to choose is words wisely and have us all believe that he alone can win over the "moderate muslims" when in fact it means absolutely nothing. This just more Obama posturing for the media. The funamentalist muslims (the ones that need to be won over) will never be won over because in their own mindsent they are holding true to their Islam teachings.
Maybe because the Christians taught the Muslims how to be ruthless...
murderers during the Crusades? Good enough reason for me.
Sorry, CJ...it is not as clear to me as it is to you..
that John McCain wants to continue fighting anywhere. What John McCain understands is that you cannot reason with some people (including terrorists) because they have no interest in getting along. That is not their agenda. They want us dead and our way of life dead. That is not going to change by sitting down and talking to them.
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up next to 4 years as a senator (2 of those at state level) where you voted present when you voted...then yes. I think 5 years in a prison camp plus serving as a military officer and commanding hundreds of soldiers makes him more qualified than Obama on the face of it...at the very least, AS qualified. And, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that John McCain puts his country first, even before himself. And to me, friend, that speaks volumes.
Obviously I was not clear enough either...
you could always ask where someone stands on a ban on gay marriage without asking how they VOTED on an issue.
I have not seen that many people on this board who were really invested in gay marriage.
If you're not gay and you don't live there...not sure why it matters to you so much? What anyone thinks?
Oh no, you have been quite clear,
and throughout this discussion you have been very cordial (I do apologize for the momentary snapishness in my last post.) Nor in your most recent post did you sink to the level of saying 'I will type slower - or use smaller words - so you can understand.' However, when someone tells me that my argument lacks merit because I do not truly understand the problem or have not thought the implications through, it brings out a bit of bitchiness in me. It is the same reaction I have when I read posts on this board saying that those who listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are being manipulated and not thinking for ourselves. (I actually consider myself a conservative, strangely enough.)
I think you do see and maybe even understand my point, as I see and feel I get where you are coming from. We see, but will have to agree to disagree.
I do not pretend that legalizing marijuana will make the world a better place, only that it will make our laws more consistent. The legality of alcohol and tobacco while marijuana remains illegal is very inconsistent. And I think the bottle no longer contains that particular genie (if it ever did). The criminalization of such behavior creates small criminals and enriches bigger criminals.
You say 'I wish no one took any mind-altering substances of any kind.' Does this mean you are a teetotaler and not somebody who enjoys a brewski on a summer day after mowing the lawn, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, as I do?
I think kids hear their government, teachers and parents painting marijuana as the 'demon killer weed' which opens the floodgates to all other substance abuse. Smoke a joint, die with a needle in your arm. Then they watch those same adults drink legal alcohol, smoke legal cigarettes, overuse prescription drugs and they see the entire thing as yet another example of extreme phoniness.
Maybe some people will try legalized marijuana who never did when it was illegal. Maybe, deprived of its mystique and the element of rebellion, fewer kids will need to act out in that particular way. If alcohol were illegal for everyone and their parents were committing a criminal act just to obtain it (which you know they would do) would fewer or more teenagers use it? If a kid walking into a 'speakeasy' were no more or less illegal than his parents doing it, what would be the result? Interesting question.
And now I am going to offer you something a woman seldom does - the last word. The final post can be yours. I've said my piece.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekepper is.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekeeper is.
If it is all clear cut that
Pelosi told the truth and the CIA is, in fact, lying....why not just let the investigation go on so the dems could tell the GOP to stick it and prove once and for all who was involved and who is lying, etc. If Pelosi is telling the truth, which I highly doubt, there should be no reason to avoid an investigation.
Oh, I red you loud and clear
and "red" was not a spelling error. Strong arming anyone into producing anything for the government is like pre and post WWII Soviet Union....you got it right when you said red and I'm not referring red state conservatives either.
Many (not all) think you have all the answers, but when it turns to action you are ready to guilt and strong arm SOMEONE ELSE to do the work.
Yep...clear....said talking to me was
like talking to your mother who had a personality disorder. Bashing me and using your mother's illness to do it. Not many ways you can take it. YOU said it. YOU brought it up. This is YOUR can of worms.
I would like to clear up perhaps some confusion.....
About "socialized" medicine. What most of you may not know is that we already have socialized medicine. That is what Medicade and Medicare is (which is financially driven by insurance companies for insurance companies tell the government what they will pay. In essense, the insurance companies are setting the bar). Most countries have some sort of socialized medicine. Canada has what is referred to as single-pay medicine, which is soley funded by the government. Those opposed to single-pay medicine here in the US are the ones stating that it does not work. However, those who have it in Canada and Britain for the most part are not complaining. Of course, you can't please everyone.
For every $50,000 in income that you make about $10,000 of your tax dollars (equal to what is allocated for defense) is going toward healthcare. Add that along with roughly the $10,000 dollars that most companies pay for your insurance, that's quite a chunk of change. But you say, well the company is paying for it, not me. But that is wrong as well, if the companies whom we work for did not have to provide medical insurance for us, there would be higher wages.
So, for someone like me, a healthy 40 something :o), who spends about $1000 dollars a year in preventative health maintenance, why am I paying $20,000, which I might add that for any catastrophic healthcare issue should occur, I would still be desitute from the financial responsibility of picking up where my insurance company falls short? If this is not an argument for healthcare reform.....
Healthcare in the US is the hands of insurance companies, where I don't believe it should be. So for those of you opposed to socialized or single-pay medicine, you are already paying for it, why not make it function better and pull it out of the hands of the fat-cat insurance companies?
Let me be perfectly clear about what I said.
Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said.
I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted.
On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.
Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple.
Let me make something clear.
I am African American. I have never seen Africa. The human race originated on the continent of Africa. Now, what do you consider yourself? You can call yourself whatever you want. We want to be known as African American.
Let's make this a little more clear as well...
Both Obama and Biden voted to fund the bridge to nowhere and then voted to defund it. Who flipped first? biggg LOL.
Well, Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, right? Little old Vermont? Fewer folks than Alaska. His approval rating wasn't that high. He also ran for Presidential nomination. Only having been a governor of a state with population smaller than Alaska's. He is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Apparently Democrats only have problems with smaller population governors if they are Republican. That is a belly LOL.
Oh please...cheating? Have you done any research on how Obama had one of his early rivals for office kicked off the ticket so he would not have to run against her? Now THAT is cheating I can believe in. Because that was cheating in politics, not his personal life.
What McCain did in his personal life does not excuse Barack Obama for what he did in his public life. I don't care what either of them does in his personal life...what I care about is what they have done in their public life. McCain certainly keeps better company than Obama does...talk about "uglies." And they are not in the past.
I think we can retire the bridge to nowhere since Obama and Biden were for it before they were against it also. THEY voted with COngress to defund it, so she turned the money to other infrastructure projects that she felt Alaska needed more. Sounds like good judgment to me.
Don't understand the Wild West comment. "Maverick" was a term applied to cattle who refused to run with the herd.
Actually, you are rehashing the same old stuff and accusing her of rehashing old stuff. Does that mean you need a thesaurus also? Just asking.
The difference is clear.
No one is saying it's all 'we people' have to worry about. But it does give us a glance in to O's morals. Win at all cost. No matter who he has to betray in the process. Doesn't that concern you at all?
And I fail to see your correlation between Obama exploiting a bracelet he was not asked specifically NOT to, and McCain choosing a woman as his running mate. If Clinton had been O's running mate, what would your argument be then?
And I beg you to do a bit more research on exactly what O is proposing to do to the middle class. Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean you should believe it without checking the facts, especially from a man running for president.
It reminds me of grade school class president elections. There was always that 'popular kid' who didn't know jack but got everybody to vote for him by promising longer lunch periods and movies on friday and free pop in the lunch room. The difference is, we're not twelve anymore.
Forgive me for not being clear enough for you (sm)
I guess the simplified question for you would be -- why bring religion into a post that had nothing to do with religion?
I think it is perfectly clear
how things will go with regards to Obama. As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism. How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president.
I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly. They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star.
When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged. Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.
Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
Let me make myself emphatically clear
I'm not gay either closet or open. I really don't care if you believe that I'm not MT. No skin off my back, but calling someone gay just because they reply to someone's posts is really stretching it and only makes you look odd like you have some gay obssession yourself. No one was calling anyone gay until you arrived today.
|
