I was shocked to see the quotes and reaction to the anti-jewish statements made by this pinhead. I was really shocked to see that Afghan President Karzai praised the remarks, and that some of our supposed allies did the same thing. Like I have said numerous times, the 'muslim world' has to stop praising and supporting terrorism before they can ever come out of the standstill they are in. The muslim world, as a whole, is fairly archaic in comparsion to modern nations, and that includes their society and way of thinking. Until they denounce terrorism and stop supporting fools that speak out like this, they will never be equal. As usual, Jacoby picked another great subject to write about.
BIGOTRY AND THE MUSLIM WORLD
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, October 23, 2003
For months following the atrocities of 9/11, US officials from President Bush on down repeatedly declared that Islam is a religion of peace and that no American should think ill of Muslims or their religion because of the terrorist attacks. In fact, Bush said, any Americans who would lash out at Muslims or attempt to intimidate them "represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior."
The president had occasion to return to the subject of religious bigotry this week, but it was Muslim hatred -- not hatred of Muslims -- that decency required him to condemn. At a gathering in Thailand, Bush made a point of telling Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad that he had been "wrong and divisive" when he uncorked a toxic rant against the world's Jews last week. Bush's conversations with foreign leaders are not usually publicized, but this time the White House spokesman related the president's words: "It stands squarely against what I believe in."
Mahathir delivered his diatribe at an Islamic summit meeting on Oct. 16. His theme was the anti-semite's timeless plaint: The Jews are few but crafty, and the world is in their grip.
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir told the leaders of 57 Muslim nations. "They get others to fight and die for them." He lamented that Jews are an enemy "who think. They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented . . . socialism, communism, human rights, and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong -- so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries. . ."
And how should the world's Muslims deal with the Jews? Mahathir urged them to learn from Mohammed's example -- to buy time by making "strategic retreats" and signing peace accords, then building up their strength until they are ready to launch a "counter-attack" that will lead to "final victory."
Mahathir's Judeophobia is an old story. More than 30 years ago, he wrote: "The Jews . . . are not merely hook-nosed, but understand money instinctively." He has blasted Jews as "monsters"; in 1994 his government banned the movie "Schindler's List" for being too pro-Jewish. When the Malaysian currency collapsed in 1997, Mahathir blamed it on George Soros, an American investor. "We do not want to say that this is a plot by the Jews," he thundered at a rally, "but in reality it is a Jew who triggered the currency plunge -- and coincidentally Soros is a Jew."
The Bush administration, no doubt for diplomatic reasons, tried to cast Mahathir's latest screed as simply the invective of a lone bigot. "The comments were hateful," National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, but "I do not think they are emblematic of the Muslim world."
If only that were true. Unfortunately, while many in the West voiced outrage at Mahathir's poisonous remarks, the Muslim world's reaction ranged from utter indifference to hearty approval.
The audience to whom Mahathir spoke -- the presidents, kings, and emirs of the nations that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- rewarded him with a standing ovation. The applauders included not only the Muslim world's dictatorial fanatics, but also its reputed moderates, including President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and Jordan's King Abdullah.
Even America's Muslim allies and clients admired Mahathir's views. The foreign minister of Egypt -- a country that receives $2 billion a year in US aid -- pronounced the speech "a very, very wise assessment." Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, praised it as "an eye-opener to a lot of us and . . . what the Islamic world should do."
Mahathir's speech raised no storm of controversy among Muslims because the Muslim world by and large has no problem with anti-semitism. Even in the United States, there was virtually no repudiation of Mahathir's venom by American Muslim leaders. A Nexis search turns up just one mild quibble: When CNN invited the head of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, to comment, he said only that he doesn't believe Jews run the world, "so I see that statement as a misguided opinion."
On Tuesday, I asked six American Muslim organizations -- CAIR, the American Muslim Association, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Institute, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council -- whether they had any reaction to Mahathir's words. Three never replied; two replied by saying they had no comment. Only MPAC condemned Mahathir -- in a press release posted a few hours after my query -- for his "extremely offensive, anti-semitic comments."
The Muslim world suffers from many problems, but none is more crippling than its culture of intolerance. Rampant anti-semitism anywhere is always a sign of grave moral sickness. Until more Muslims are prepared to confront and conquer that sickness in their midst, the Muslim world will remain the benighted backwater that so many Muslims deplore.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
Below is Jerry Falwell's latest article...very timely as well.
I was frankly disgusted to hear about this line in the script- where they try to paint Reagan as a heartless jerk, but that's Hollywood, I guess. They make a movie that should be sticking to the facts, yet they try to demonize him, clearly because he's a republican, and no other reason.
Falwell Confidential
Date: October 23, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell
SMEARING REAGAN
On Thursday morning's "Today" broadcast, NBC reporter Jill Rappaport
interviewed actor Ed Harris about his new movie, "Radio." The film recounts
the real-life relationship between a high school football coach who creates
local controversy by recruiting a mentally-challenged teenager as the team
mascot.
"Since it's a true story," Ms. Rappaport said to the actor, "you've got a
lot of responsibility there."
Well, that stands to reason.
But somebody needs to alert CBS to the fact that there does indeed need to
be some sense of responsibility and accountability when documenting a true
story on film.
Next month, the network will broadcast the controversial miniseries "The
Reagans," which stars leftist actors James Brolin (husband of the
spelling-challenged singer/activist Barbra Streisand) and Judy Davis in the
roles of President and Mrs. Ronald Reagan.
A script of the two-part movie has been revealed on several Internet news
sites. It exposes the malicious sentiment the network (and most of
Hollywood, for that matter) has for Mr. Reagan.
The most controversial element of the script has the dearly loved president
discussing the AIDS crisis. In the film, when Mrs. Reagan encourages him to
help AIDS victims, Mr. Reagan reportedly responds, "They that live in sin
shall die in sin."
Anyone who ever knew President Reagan knows that such language would never
emanate from this heroic man. While Reagan detractors enjoy portraying him
as a bumbling and unfeeling man, the truth is he was a compassionate and
respectful leader who would be taken aback by such language. (In fact, not
even a wild-eyed religious radical like me has ever made such a blatantly
horrific statement.)
Nevertheless, CBS officials are predictably touting their allegedly unbiased
approach to the Reagan miniseries.
"The miniseries is a compelling and historical account of Mr. and Mrs.
Reagan's remarkable relationship set against the backdrop of the former
president's political career," the network said in a statement. "The film
has been meticulously researched and offers a respectful and balanced
portrayal of the Reagans."
So Mr. Reagan will be depicted as a cold-hearted ogre and the network
explains this as a reverential portrayal of the man? That's nice.
In addition, the movie will reportedly ignore the remarkable economic growth
fostered under the Reagan administration that began in 1982 and carried on
for several years.
It's really no wonder that people are abandoning network television in
droves. The lack of respect for a revered leader like Ronald Reagan is
reflected in the networks' disregard for television viewers who are
force-fed a steady diet of gratuitous sex, lewd sexual dialogue,
superfluous violence and preachy leftist politics.
I wonder if network execs really believe that American television viewers
are wholly comprised of sex-obsessed leftist operatives who want to see
President Reagan denigrated?
I can't think of another explanation.
The New York Times reported this week that some network officials, true to
form, are actually questioning the trustworthiness of Nielsen Media
Research - the organization that monitors television viewership - instead of
addressing the quality of show they are putting out while they attempt to
determine why far less people are tuning into their shows.
It all makes sense in a weird sort of way.
Network officials live in a closed culture where conservatives are perceived
as villains and traditional families - who are starving for quality
television - are discounted as irrelevant.
Under this scenario, Ronald Reagan - a hero to most conservatives and
traditionalists - would obviously be presented as a mean-spirited malefactor
by the networks.
What's the solution? Write to CBS and considerately explain your
disappointment with "The Reagans" miniseries. Until our side gets
proactive, we can't expect things to change. Besides, I think Mr. Reagan
earned our support and writing to defend his legacy is the least we can do
for him.
CBS website: http://www.cbs.com (click on "feedback" at the bottom of the
page)
ROFLMMFAO!!!!!! I remember why I come here now? Paranoid right wing babble! Pure genius!
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 24, 2003 07:38 PMhmm. odd. please direct me to the "right wing" section of what i said, because id sure like to know. its fun to label, even when the label doesnt fit huh?
id also like to know how its "babble," when i simply discussed the facts- pointing out who praised the anti-jewish comments.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 24, 2003 08:13 PMLet me ask you this, what do you propose we do with all those "evil terrorist muslums"?
Please answer the question.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 25, 2003 10:02 AMits muslims, and what are you talking about? did you even read his article?
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 25, 2003 02:36 PMStop trying to dodge the question because you know your answer is not "politically correct"...
Yes. I read the article. I read it on Canada.com last week.
I am refering to your stance and comments on how Muslums are the threat.
I would like to know how you would deal with this "threat" and "evil religion"
Please stop dancing around and answer the question.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 26, 2003 08:38 AMlol. like i care whats politically correct. do you not read the site? theres no solution really. you cant force people not to believe that the west is evil and that allah will award them for terrorist acts. just have to deal with the big time whackos as we can, one by one...take out the terrorist groups, force sanctions on nations who support terrorism. things that are being done already- other than that, people are people- and some of them are ignorant of the truth.
so, to answer your question- nothing more than is being done. im not dancing around at all.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 26, 2003 09:08 AMActually, you yet again (although it would seem un-wittingly) dodged the question.
You said what should be done to terrorists and terror groups (advocating the fact that not all muslums are violent people) yet you clearly state (on more than one ocasion) that the muslum faith is evil and needs to be dealt with.
How do you propose dealing with your average muslum, since they are apparently such a threat?
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 26, 2003 10:20 AMi never dodged any question. you clearly need to look a bit closer (i guess?!) i answered by saying, we should do what were doing now. of course islam at its core is somewhat evil- it calls for the forced formation of a worldwide muslim govt. by any force necessary. id call that evil! its a religion that ripped off judaism and christianity, then went on to perverse those two religions into a new one lead by a dillusional maniac who demanded acceptance as a prophet of allah. so, we can deduce that its a false religion- another clear evil.
were dealing with the muslim world now. its a very backward world for the most part, so its not a simple task.
no one ever said that all muslIms are evil. ive made the comment time and time again that i do not believe that to be a case...but, its clear that muslim society overall is quite backwards in its thinking, and large groups within this religion seem to praise violence way too easily.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 26, 2003 05:33 PM"then went on to perverse those two religions into a new one lead by a dillusional maniac who demanded acceptance as a prophet of allah."
As opposed to a "god" demand you accept him in order to "get into heaven"?
I say abolish ALL religion. Which one is the right one? You say its yours and down the rest. The trst say its theirs and denounce yours. It doesnt matter what you say in regards to "muslum religion is phycotic, etc etc"....they say the same thing about christians and judism...and have their list of facts as to why as well.
Abolish religion. All it is is a form of population control. Thats the only REAL way to fix this problem....
The other way is to stop listening to all these right winged, hate filled conservitaves who get on TV and twist around the muslum faith and tell you their leader was crazy and their religion is a sham.....it's not helping either. And vice versa...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 26, 2003 09:07 PMonce again, for the sake of my sanity, proofread. or better yet, stop spelling muslim with a "u."
the topic isnt even religion in general. its the attitude of muslim nations towards the west.
what religion demands you accept god to get into heaven? again, youre clearly not familiar with christianity, because you try to paint it in a bad light like that, which is silly.
btw. i simply loved the part about right-wing hate-filled conservatives. pretty silly to put that label on a group that it would be fair to say makes up a majority of the people in the united states.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 26, 2003 09:18 PM"again, youre clearly not familiar with christianity, because you try to paint it in a bad light like that, which is silly."
As are you about the muslim faith.
"pretty silly to put that label on a group that it would be fair to say makes up a majority of the people in the united states."
Wow. I'm not sure what's more "silly"....the fact that you claim its the majority opinion of those in the US, or the fact that you feel it's true because "everyone says so"...
If everyone said walk off a cliff, would you do it?
no, ive actually read a number of books on islam, so im somewhat familiar with the subject.
youre now going to claim that the majority of americans dont believe in god (they do), and those who do believe in god consider themselves christian (they do as well)? its a fact, so how you think its funny i claim that is a bit odd. no one said anything was true because someone said so.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 27, 2003 11:53 AM[[no, ive actually read a number of books on islam, so im somewhat familiar with the subject.]]
Yeah, I remember you talking about one such book almost a year ago....wasn't it one of those books that talk al the bad things about the Islamic faith?
I'm sure if you read credible books about Islam actually writte by Islamic clerics (not extremist psychos) you will get a more clear picture of what Islam stands for.
[[no one said anything was true because someone said so.]]
You said, and I quote: "i simply loved the part about right-wing hate-filled conservatives. pretty silly to put that label on a group that it would be fair to say makes up a majority of the people in the united states."
......Which lead me to believe you took your un-educated opinion from what you see on TV from people who know just as little as you do about Islam.
Also, I would like to ask you about the following in what you said:
[[but, its clear that muslim society overall is quite backwards in its thinking, and large groups within this religion seem to praise violence way too easily.]]
How can you possibly say that when Christians caused more war, death and destruction in the 20th century then Muslims ever did?
Stop being so arogant. You can't criticise their way of life when the aspect you criticise is worse on your own side.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 27, 2003 12:16 PMplease name all the "christian caused" wars. please. id love to see that list!
as for something being true cause i said so- i said that the majority of americans believe in god and consider themselves christian...not that they think most terrorism is muslim based (it is)
one book i read i mentioned. it was about terrorism. you think the only credible books about islam are those written by muslim clerics? thats kinda silly.
ive read a few books on terrorism, a few on islam...not by clerics, but that doesnt make them less credible!
[[please name all the "christian caused" wars. please. id love to see that list!]]
You really want it? Well, Here it goes big boy!
The 30 Years war:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14648b.htm
The Reformation: (Caused destruction and 5 civil wars in Europe)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm#VI
The 1641 Rebelion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/plantation/planters/es10.shtml
The St. Bartholomew Massacre:
The French Wars of Religion: 1562-1598:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM
Ireland's Holy Wars:
http://www.eamonn.com/archives/000387.html
Catholic/Protestant Wars:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/plantation/religious/rl01.shtml
World War 1: (started by christians)
(TERRORIST GROUP)
Irish Republican Army:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/ira.html
Shall I go on there big boy or have you had enough?
[[one book i read i mentioned. it was about terrorism. you think the only credible books about islam are those written by muslim clerics?]]
Actually, I stated the opposite. I said the only Islamic books you read are written by people who know as little about it as you do.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 27, 2003 07:40 PMlol. no, i was actually looking for a time period we like to call the present or somewhere somewhat close to the present- since you said that all the evil christians caused horrible bloodshed in the 20th century- youre trying to blame the cause on christianity...
are you really going to try to equate the "terrorism" in ireland with global terrorism which is predominately carried out by islamic extremists? one affecting a very small part of europe, and the other affecting the entire globe? are you going to try to tell me that you dont see youre comparing apples and oranges? thats absurd!!
you can deny it all you want...but of all the major conflicts around the world right this minute- somewhere around 85%+ of those conflicts were started by muslim terrorist groups. why you want so badly for terrorist groups to not have a bad name, i have no idea.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 27, 2003 11:47 PM[[are you really going to try to equate the "terrorism" in ireland with global terrorism which is predominately carried out by islamic extremists?]]
Say it with me now....."islamic extremists"...... "islamic extremists"...... "islamic extremists"....
Not all of Islam, but just the EXTREMESTS" are the REAL threat....remember that.
[[why you want so badly for terrorist groups to not have a bad name, i have no idea.]]
I don't usually stoop to name calling but god you're dense....
I am defending "ISLAM!!!!!" Not terrorists. I am proving that Islam is just as much a threat as christianity is (not much on either case in the present world) but rather extremests on both sides that distort facts and rally support that is the true threat.....
For god's sake.....nevermind.....
Oh, by the way, you "missed" one of my wars. World War 1. A 20th century war faught prodominately by christians.
more than 13 million dead. More than 34 million wounded.
How many people died at the hands of the Islamic faith in the 20th century? Perhaps your "figures" show more....or most likely you will dismiss this because I'm right and call me "silly" or something...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 28, 2003 12:16 PMhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWdeaths.htm
Here is my source by the way.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 28, 2003 12:17 PMumm. were talking about religious wars here. WWI was NOT a religious war. it might have been fought by men who claimed christianity, but it wasnt a war fought over religion- it wasnt a war fought FOR religion. again, its like comparing apples and oranges. terrorism is strictly a religious war (for the most part), fought for religion and because of religion. you just cant compare the two
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 28, 2003 05:41 PMYou're damn right I can! World War 1 was fought prodominately by christians, proving that Extremests of Islam are not the only ones prone to violince as you would make it seem.
Of course the wars are not of the same grounds, but the "FACT!!!!" remains, both religions can ve equally as violent....if not the Christians more so...
Islam is not the real threat folks...remember that. Islamic extremests are....
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 28, 2003 06:04 PMdid you even read this entry and the article along with it? did you not see the anti-jewish sentiment that is running rampant throughout the middle east and parts of asia? you cant see that terrorism, the biggest problem on earth right now is 99% islamic in nature...that of all the conflicts worldwide right now, almost every single one of them is a situation caused by muslims on the offense, attacking non muslims? did you miss it when large masses of palestinians danced with joy in the street after sept 11? i guess by your standard, they were ALL extremists then? did you miss the final words of muhammed? where he said to go out and take the world, convert them to islam by force? can you not see a fundamental difference between the bible and the koran? to look at history and forget all the wars fought by muslims FOR islam...you keep claiming that there are these huge christian wars fought for christianity in the name of god...but, the rest of us will sit here and realize that islamic nuts are the ones that are blowing themselves up in front of cafes, driving fake ambulances filled with explosives into the red cross, etc. youre clearly blind to whats going on in the world, and frankly, i think its sad.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 28, 2003 06:27 PMdid you even read this entry and the article along with it? did you not see the anti-jewish sentiment that is running rampant throughout the middle east and parts of asia? you cant see that terrorism, the biggest problem on earth right now is 99% islamic in nature...that of all the conflicts worldwide right now, almost every single one of them is a situation caused by muslims on the offense, attacking non muslims? did you miss it when large masses of palestinians danced with joy in the street after sept 11? i guess by your standard, they were ALL extremists then? did you miss the final words of muhammed? where he said to go out and take the world, convert them to islam by force? can you not see a fundamental difference between the bible and the koran? to look at history and forget all the wars fought by muslims FOR islam...you keep claiming that there are these huge christian wars fought for christianity in the name of god...but, the rest of us will sit here and realize that islamic nuts are the ones that are blowing themselves up in front of cafes, driving fake ambulances filled with explosives into the red cross, etc. youre clearly blind to whats going on in the world, and frankly, i think its sad.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 28, 2003 06:28 PMbtw. that was fairly funny in your last comment where you tried to claim that WWI was fought by christian extremists! now, thats comedy!
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at October 28, 2003 06:29 PM[[did you even read this entry and the article along with it? did you not see the anti-jewish sentiment that is running rampant throughout the middle east and parts of asia? you cant see that terrorism, the biggest problem on earth right now is 99% islamic in nature...that of all the conflicts worldwide right now]]
RIGHT NOW!!!! Yes...im aware of Islamic issues with extremests...as I am with the issues with christians and their war prone tendancies...(as shown above)...
Both must be met with tolerance and understanding...not finger pointing (as you do...ie:Islam is the greatest world threat)
[[ that of all the conflicts worldwide right now, almost every single one of them is a situation caused by muslims on the offense, attacking non muslims? did you miss it when large masses of palestinians danced with joy in the street after sept 11? ]]
No, I didnt miss that....I also didn't miss the Jews dancing in the street after 9/11 either...
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=5303
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
Whats your point? Even your cosest allies were dancing and celebrating? (is that the sound of your foot in your mouth there big boy?...although you will NEVER admit it, I think it is...)
[[ ? can you not see a fundamental difference between the bible and the koran? ]]
Sure I can...but I have this crazy idea of judging the ko-ran by ALL parts of its scriptures, and not just catch phraises quoted by you to make it seem worse than it actually is (In which case christianity can he quoted as condoning slavery in mankind if you want to talk semantics)
[[btw. that was fairly funny in your last comment where you tried to claim that WWI was fought by christian extremists! now, thats comedy!]]
Can you quote me where I said "christian extremests" you dence bastard?
I'll bet you a million bucks you cant...and you just threw that in to prove your futile point.
Ehy do you think none of your regualr friends post in these threads? Because they know myself and lowdown are usually right, and dont want to offend you by agreeing with us on your arogant points of view...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 28, 2003 06:52 PMdude. you keep proving yourself an ass time and time again. you cant spell worth shit- i mean, come on, not to be too rude, but no one can take you seriously when you cant even spell extremists.
you call names like its nothing...im a "dence bastard" sic, because i cant quote you saying extremists. no one said you used the word extremists, but use your brain for a few seconds- if you claim that christians caused WWI and that it was a christian war overall, thats insanity- and you can clearly use the word "extremists" for such people...and im sure any history professor would kick you in the head for even attempting to say that.
as i have said before...ive read a number of books about islam, and im NOT taking just a few quotes. im talking muhammeds overall message...his dillusional state when he claimed all of his prophetic nonsense, and im taking the basic tenants of the religion...that is the OVERALL book. not just a few quotes. ive mentioned this a number of times, but you neglect to mention this, and try to claim im using just a few quotes.
find any terrorism expert and ask them where terrorism mainly lies- in islamic terrorists (golly!) but you keep saying im this huge idiot because i say that islam is the biggest threat we need to deal with in 2003.
you post some links that say nothing about masses of jews dancing in the streets. there ARE palestinian israelis, im sure you werent aware, from the way you talk...no large groups of jewish people rallied in the streets, but again- nice attempt.
finally, your last paragraph is just nonsense. i dont get TONS of regular visitors that interact at all...thats because idont tell many people about my site, and i dont chat and meet new people often. so, tho youre trying to paint me as a fool, again- you lose. you and lowdown both have a tendency to disagree with the majority (of north americans at least...and you refuse to accept that islamic terrorism is the biggest threat today...it is, dont worry, well keep ya safe.
you just keep making a fool of yourself, which i dont mind, because it makes me laugh.
for future reference, i think it might even be a good idea to stay on topic! this whole entry was aimed at general anti -semitic comments by islamic leaders and middle eastern nation leaders. you keep trying your hardest to turn this into a bad bad christian post, but its silly...and its old.
Sorry there grammar Gestapo. I have explained in the past that it's hard for me to type (see my keys) properly with my current setup, so spelling mistakes are inevitable... (by the way, to save yourself from further embarrassment, I would run my posts through a spell check too before I accused someone else of bad spelling there dude...)
[[but use your brain for a few seconds- if you claim that Christians caused WWI and that it was a Christian war overall, that’s insanity-]]
Well, lets see here. Russia was Russian Orthodox (hitherto Catholic)
Italy was Roman Catholic. Germany was predominately Christian, UK was Christian. USA was predominately Christian. Austrians were predominately Roman Catholic. Canada was predominately Christian.
I also recall tens of thousands of people waving and cheering their soldiers off to battle. What kind of people who follow such a "forgiving and peaceful" religion cheer their men and women of to go kill and slaughter each other?
So I guess Muslims are NOT THE ONLY ONES PRONE TO VIOLENCE. Remember that ladies and gentlemen ;)
[[as I have said before...ive read a number of books about islam, and im NOT taking just a few quotes. im talking muhammeds overall message...his dillusional state when he claimed all of his prophetic nonsense, and im taking the basic tenants of the religion...]]
Yeah, I have done a lot of research on the Christian religion as well. I don't like following it mainly because the Bible accepts slavery, and that’s something I feel is wrong. So you have a madman in one religion, and slavery in the other. Take your pick.
[[find any terrorism expert and ask them where terrorism mainly lies- in islamic terrorists]]
There you go again. Proving me right. Terrorism lies in "Islamic Terrorists".....not your average Islamic population. Islam is not the problem, Terrorism and extremists that twist the word of the Koran are....
[[you post some links that say nothing about masses of jews dancing in the streets. there ARE palestinian israelis, im sure you werent aware, from the way you talk...no large groups of jewish people rallied in the streets, but again- nice attempt.]]
I guess my ABC News source didn't sway you. I'll try and find one from your ever loving FOX News for ya kiddo....
[[, tho youre trying to paint me as a fool, again- you lose]]
Hey, if the show fits, wear it....
[[you keep trying your hardest to turn this into a bad bad christian post, but its silly...and its old.]]
Good f**King god....you still don't get it. I know Christians are not bad people. I was showing you the fact that people of Islam are NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE PRONE TO VIOLENCE and how you ALWAYS make Christians be these poor people, only wanting peace, constantly being attacked by Islam, which IS NOT TRUE, no matter what you want to say.
Havn't you ever though about maybe it's your arogance thats the source of your current problems? From my standpoint, it would seem so.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at October 29, 2003 08:11 AM