The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

Pleiades53 · 2015-12-10 19:22:33

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26106 … greenfield

http://megynkelly.org/20562/trump-hater … nd-worse/#

bidji91 · 2015-12-10 20:16:34

Have a look at the bible and look how it justifies slavery.

The prblm is idiocy (& probably the invasion but eh you cannot use that argument there) not the religion itself.

Last edited by bidji91 (2015-12-10 20:25:03)

Pleiades53 · 2015-12-10 21:32:12

I don't know what Bible you have read where slavery is justified.
If you are referencing the Old Testament, remember that was over 2,000 years ago and once Jesus walked this Earth, the old laws and challenges ceased. Christianity did not come about until after the death of Jesus. Hence the word "Christian". Which means: Christ like.
If you know of a New Testament verse or chapter referencing slavery, in a positive I would love to read it! I am certainly not a Bible scholar but am open to learning!
:-)

ATF_SurrenderMonkey · 2015-12-10 21:48:20

Ed note: This post is a google search in response to part of Pleiades53 Q, "...If you know of a New Testament verse or chapter referencing slavery..."
I did not verify if these books "..reference slavery, in a positive..."

Matthew 18:25
Luke 12:45-48
Ephesians 6:5-9
Colossians 4:1

1 Timothy 6:1-3

Nosferatu · 2015-12-10 22:45:55

bidji91 wrote:

Have a look at the bible and look how it justifies slavery.
The prblm is idiocy (& probably the invasion but eh you cannot use that argument there) not the religion itself.

Nah, main problem here is religion itself.. When people are either too stupid to know better or are ignorant then u get these problems.
They think that they have to live by some book written by (maybe) an idiot some ages ago... WTF grow up will ya!

Pleiades53 · 2015-12-10 23:39:34

Going to look it up tonight when I get home,......BEFORE (as if THATS likely!) playing BF1942.
Expanding the knowledge.

Pleiades53 · 2015-12-11 00:42:38

OK Bidgi91, I APOLOGIZE and have been corrected by Pastor Monky on the teachings of slavery in the New Testament. It is ABSOLUTELY spoken of, although I did not read the entire context but I dont believe it would have changed the meaning. Seems I have been tutored with learning and am responsible to say "I am sorry bidgi91" for my incorrect assumption. Hope you accept the apology and I will keep learning every day. Got a tutor now it seems..........
:-)
PS: THANKS one more time Monky, as if I have not typed that to you enough. Accept the THANKS as genuine too because it IS!

bidji91 wrote:

Have a look at the bible and look how it justifies slavery.
The prblm is idiocy (& probably the invasion but eh you cannot use that argument there) not the religion itself.

Pleiades53 · 2015-12-11 00:44:04

Oh and I ACTUALLY did go look it up BEFORE logging into Simple server. I am SO proud of myself!
**pats self on back**

Last edited by Pleiades53 (2015-12-11 00:44:26)

PitViper · 2015-12-11 01:14:13

Well Winston... we have had enough.

If you believe in the koran...and live by sharia law.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

You mention money and economic issues Winston...
Don't care whom it affects...if you are making a living off of this shit...find another way...if it affects your life...live somewhere else....and if you think we care about islam...or the lives of those that follow sharia...you are mistaken.

Last edited by PitViper (2015-12-12 05:12:07)

Paulnz · 2015-12-11 06:57:01

PitViper wrote:

GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

sorry couldn't resist lol

Winston Smith · 2015-12-11 10:19:48

I completely empathise with the emotions you guys are showing, Pit and Pleiades53, and likewise I have no time for people who blindly follow ideas that I find dangerous and false.

Religion has served us well for thousands of years; providing rules, structure, meaning, etc, but it has evolved in the West. We take the good and leave the nonsense: "Thou shall not kill" Sure, no problem. That completely makes sense in today's world. "Thou shalt not wear a garment of differing sorts, as of woolen and linen together." What?! But polyester gives my woolen clothes strength! Go back to the stone age! Sharia law is scary because it's strict and draconian and many of the rules don't make sense in today's world. Not only has it not evolve but it threatens to return us all to a darker time.

However, rounding up Iraian citizens with temporary visas and deporting them during the Iran crisis is one thing, but rounding up American citizens based on their religious beliefs would be a constitutional clusterfuck that would would end up being bogged down in the courts. I can't see it succeeding legally because there would be too many interest groups opposing it, the NRA for example, would argue that if the First Amendment is cast aside, then the Second Amendment; the right to bear arms, could be next.

My fear, for America, is that vigilantes will take matters into their own hands and when anti-Muslim vigilantes are operating in any Western country it's the Sikhs that suffer; it's always the Sikhs that suffer. Sikhs are targeted because they wear turbans and look like we think Muslims are supposed to look like.

So whatever you do, please think it through, protect your family, your country, and your neighbours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVcHCrzIpTs

Aqualung · 2015-12-11 11:01:29

Winston Smith wrote:

I completely empathise with the emotions you guys are showing, Pit and Pleiades53, and likewise I have no time for people who blindly follow ideas that I find dangerous and false.
Religion has served us well for thousands of years; providing rules, structure, meaning, etc, but it has evolved in the West. We take the good and leave the nonsense: "Thou shall not kill" Sure, no problem. That completely makes sense in today's world. "Thou shalt not wear a garment of differing sorts, as of woolen and linen together." What?! But polyester gives my woolen clothes strength! Go back to the stone age! Sharia law is scary because it's strict and draconian and many of the rules don't make sense in today's world. Not only has it not evolve but it threatens to return us all to a darker time.
However, rounding up Iraian citizens with temporary visas and deporting them during the Iran crisis is one thing, but rounding up American citizens based on their religious beliefs would be a constitutional clusterfuck that would would end up being bogged down in the courts. I can't see it succeeding legally because there would be too many interest groups opposing it, the NRA for example, would argue that if the First Amendment is cast aside, then the Second Amendment; the right to bear arms, could be next.
My fear, for America, is that vigilantes will take matters into their own hands and when anti-Muslim vigilantes are operating in any Western country it's the Sikhs that suffer; it's always the Sikhs that suffer. Sikhs are targeted because they wear turbans and look like we think Muslims are supposed to look like.
So whatever you do, please think it through, protect your family, your country, and your neighbours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVcHCrzIpTs

It is indeed unfortunate when Sikhs catch this misguided crossfire from haters, especially considering they are ACTUALLY a Religion-of-Peace(TM). Ignorance is contagious and often has disastrously unintended consequences.

That being said, the only vigilantism in the Western world worth noting today comes FROM Muslims. You cannot simultaneously be the world's largest purveyor of hate and violence AND claim perpetual victimhood, it just doesn't work that way.

I don't know of anyone of relevance in my country who suggests "rounding up American citizens based on their religious beliefs."

Last edited by Aqualung (2015-12-11 11:03:13)

Aqualung · 2015-12-11 11:05:31

Paulnz wrote:

PitViper wrote:
GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.
https://i.imgflip.com/vkzvt.jpg
sorry couldn't resist lol

sorry, is that meant to be an Aborigone speaking to European invaders of the land you now call Australia?

Aqualung · 2015-12-11 11:16:57

bidji91 wrote:

Have a look at the bible and look how it justifies slavery.
The prblm is idiocy (& probably the invasion but eh you cannot use that argument there) not the religion itself.

Of course, terrible atrocities are justified in the bible, nobody who has read it disputes that. But...

Seriously though, WHEN?!?! Never?? So please, spare me the "all religions are evil" crap, it's horseshit and everyone who is being intellectually honest knows this. I don't much give two shits what Christians may or may not have done 600 or 1000 years ago, I care what they are doing TODAY. And we apply the exact same litmus test to ALL religions.

So then... why are Islam's scriptural calls to violence so dangerous and other religions benign? Here is a major reason:

Question:
Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Their apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Last edited by Aqualung (2015-12-11 11:22:27)

Zody · 2015-12-11 12:04:34

Aqualung wrote:

Paulnz wrote:
PitViper wrote:
GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY.
https://i.imgflip.com/vkzvt.jpg
sorry couldn't resist lol
sorry, is that meant to be an Aborigone speaking to European invaders of the land you now call Australia?

Replace Aborigine with Maori and Australia with New Zealand and you are good to go

I might add that the treatment of Natives in the US is not comparable to how New Zealand treated their Natives. New Zealand's treatment is/was bad but the US's was/is way worse.

Last edited by Zody (2015-12-11 12:24:10)

Aqualung · 2015-12-12 00:25:38

I might add that the treatment of Natives in the US is not comparable to how New Zealand treated their Natives. New Zealand's treatment is/was bad but the US's was/is way worse.

While that statement may be true, it is also misleading by not telling the complete story. Two points on that:

1) The Maori were numerous, relatively centralized in the upper half of the North Island. They had also rapidly assimilated firearms (imagine that...) since the early nineteenth century. In fact, the 1810-1820 period saw significant inter-tribal conflict amongst the Maori, with extensive use of firearms. This meant early European settlers could not act with impunity, and without military support from London, were forced to accommodate the Maori, who could at any time drive them into the sea. It also didn't much hurt the cause of the Maori that they were more than willing to kill and EAT THEIR VICTIMS - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_massacre for details.

2) The Maori adapted quickly to the settler presence, trading happily and, for the most part, accommodating of the settlers. Having settlers near your community was widely seen as a way of adding to ones mana (importance) because of the manufactured goods they brought and the protection from other warring tribes the settlers presence provided. This meant London had very little reason to intervene, and, when combined with (1), meant there was a relatively positive relationship for the early years.

The "big picture" is (almost) always important.

Last edited by Aqualung (2015-12-12 00:26:18)

Zody · 2015-12-12 00:40:10

Aqualung wrote:

I might add that the treatment of Natives in the US is not comparable to how New Zealand treated their Natives. New Zealand's treatment is/was bad but the US's was/is way worse.
While that statement may be true, it is also misleading by not telling the complete story. Two points on that:
1) The Maori were numerous, relatively centralized in the upper half of the North Island. They had also rapidly assimilated firearms (imagine that...) since the early nineteenth century. In fact, the 1810-1820 period saw significant inter-tribal conflict amongst the Maori, with extensive use of firearms. This meant early European settlers could not act with impunity, and without military support from London, were forced to accommodate the Maori, who could at any time drive them into the sea. It also didn't much hurt the cause of the Maori that they were more than willing to kill and EAT THEIR VICTIMS - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_massacre for details.
2) The Maori adapted quickly to the settler presence, trading happily and, for the most part, accommodating of the settlers. Having settlers near your community was widely seen as a way of adding to ones mana (importance) because of the manufactured goods they brought and the protection from other warring tribes the settlers presence provided. This meant London had very little reason to intervene, and, when combined with (1), meant there was a relatively positive relationship for the early years.
The "big picture" is (almost) always important.

Yea I agree.
Just one thing. Natives eating their enemies is something you widely find in narratives from British colonist. It is most likely British propaganda and hence should be treated carefully.

Winston Smith · 2015-12-14 08:58:16

Zody wrote:

Aqualung wrote:
I might add that the treatment of Natives in the US is not comparable to how New Zealand treated their Natives. New Zealand's treatment is/was bad but the US's was/is way worse.
While that statement may be true, it is also misleading by not telling the complete story. Two points on that:
1) The Maori were numerous, relatively centralized in the upper half of the North Island. They had also rapidly assimilated firearms (imagine that...) since the early nineteenth century. In fact, the 1810-1820 period saw significant inter-tribal conflict amongst the Maori, with extensive use of firearms. This meant early European settlers could not act with impunity, and without military support from London, were forced to accommodate the Maori, who could at any time drive them into the sea. It also didn't much hurt the cause of the Maori that they were more than willing to kill and EAT THEIR VICTIMS - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_massacre for details.
2) The Maori adapted quickly to the settler presence, trading happily and, for the most part, accommodating of the settlers. Having settlers near your community was widely seen as a way of adding to ones mana (importance) because of the manufactured goods they brought and the protection from other warring tribes the settlers presence provided. This meant London had very little reason to intervene, and, when combined with (1), meant there was a relatively positive relationship for the early years.
The "big picture" is (almost) always important.

Yea I agree.
Just one thing. Natives eating their enemies is something you widely find in narratives from British colonist. It is most likely British propaganda and hence should be treated carefully.

Aqualung:
More or less that's what we are taught in history classes but it's import to note that there was a small but influential movement of missionaries who were motivated by a desire not to see a repetition of atrocities like those committed in North America and Australia. The missionaries took on a paternal role and often acted as mediators between Maori and the crown. They also raised Maori concerns with their influential contacts back in London. If New Zealand had been colonised before North America and Australia the treatment of Maori may well have been different. We all learn from our mistakes and now the Brits are one of the strongest proponents of human rights. They've come a long, long way.

Zody:
Cannibalism in New Zealand is well document in both European writings and Maori oral tradition. There are numerous Maori accounts of intertribal cannibalism as well as primary source accounts from European missionaries, explorers, traders, etc. The European accounts are not only from the British either, there are many from Britain's European enemies of the time as well.

Count ComBat · 2015-12-14 17:35:05

Same in New Guinea, cannibalism was a normal thing there with cultural background, they tortured their pow`s before they ate them - or at least parts of them like the heart etc - what allegedly transfered the strength of the enemy to themself.. typical stupid human bullshit huh - strange thing is theres still a lot of violence in New Guinea nowadays, saw a reportage lately about this, many tribes n bands do start serious n brutal fights on every lousy occassion, sometimes its about land or women or even just for the action, they said that they mostly have no clue when n why all this has started, sometimes ages ago, they continue tho for the honor of their ancestors n because its a cultural tradition.. i guess because they are bored n havnt that much to do, too.. well once they used knifes n maces n spears, nowadays guns etc.. was a pretty scary reportage, i guess one better shouldnt leave the tourists-areas.. Has anyone here ever been there?

Winston Smith · 2015-12-15 03:46:31

I've never been there but when I was in primary school one of my teachers had previously lived in Port Moresby for a year or two. I remember playing with some of the things she brought back, like a shield made from a sea turtle's shell.

Some years later a missionary came to my high school and told us stories about his time living in the jungles of Papua New Guinea. He lived in a giant tree house that was more than 10 metres off the ground. It was that high for protection from attacks by other tribes. The missionary showed us a large carved wooden club that one of the natives had given him. apparently it had been carved with the sole reason of killing an enemy who had killed this guys kin. The story went that the guy took weeks or months to carve the club while reciting the names of his family members who had been killed. Eventually the missionary taught him God's peace and the guy forgave his enemies and gifted the club to the missionary since he didn't need it anymore. I was always a little skeptical about this story though.

Another story was in the New Zealand news a couple of years ago. A couple were hiking through the Papuan jungle and stopped by a river to have a swim and rest. The girl was swimming while her boyfriend was sunbathing. Suddenly arrows started to shoot into the guy from out of the jungle. Turns out a local guy had taken an interest in the girl and decided his best option was to deal with her man the old fashioned way. I know there's a lot of people on this forum who'd be quick to say "bloody savages!", or something to that effect but the guy who did this was considered to be a nutter by the locals too. Similar to the nutters we all have in our Western countries.

As far as I know the capital is the only reasonably safe place.

SiMPLE | Forum

Announcement

#31 2015-12-10 19:22:33

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#32 2015-12-10 20:16:34

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#33 2015-12-10 21:32:12

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#34 2015-12-10 21:48:20

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#35 2015-12-10 22:45:55

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#36 2015-12-10 23:39:34

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#37 2015-12-11 00:42:38

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#38 2015-12-11 00:44:04

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#39 2015-12-11 01:14:13

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#40 2015-12-11 06:57:01

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#41 2015-12-11 10:19:48

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#42 2015-12-11 11:01:29

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#43 2015-12-11 11:05:31

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#44 2015-12-11 11:16:57

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#45 2015-12-11 12:04:34

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#46 2015-12-12 00:25:38

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#47 2015-12-12 00:40:10

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#48 2015-12-14 08:58:16

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#49 2015-12-14 17:35:05

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

#50 2015-12-15 03:46:31

Re: The California Terrorist attack and How to Deal with Mohammedans

Board footer