Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Watch how the Imam in NYC is doing business and you will see how the west will be won....for Islam.


His tenament buildings are slums subsidized by YOU!! the American tax payer.

His victory center at ground zero will be the same, funded in part by YOU THE TAXPAYER!!

He along with other Muslim groups cry foul if the wind blows on them too harshly, they claim bias against them on every front. The truth is that crimes against muslims are somewhere along the 7 % range while crimes against Jews are in the 57% range. yet the media reports it like it was reversed. We are so "tolerant" to the needs of muslims that they are holding a knife to our throats and we are begging them to " do us like they did Danny Pearl". If we don't put an end to the Islamic assault on this country, we will lose this country to them, just the same way France, England and much of Europe has been lost and fouled by these scum.

I saw a short video of these so called religous leaders on the tube and it was a scary image for sure, I looked nothing like America as we know and love.. It looked like something out of Saudi Arabia or somewhere else with a lot of sand and BS,,,Our "tolerance" ,if not curtailed soon will lead to our ruin in short order. By taking advantage of our PC and other social nonsense they are emboldened to push their BS to the limits. Pinheads like Bloomberg and Obama singing their praises doesn't help either.If they are so willing to get along why won;t they consider moving the damn thing so the folks that had deaths occur in their lives on 9/11 can "tolerate" them?? No respect for the victims families is not right and it shouldn't be "tolerated" either.

The US will be defeated from with in, it's happening every day before your eyes. I've said many times Nov is a crossroads, you better pay attention which way it goes.
I've spent a lot of time lately in my favorite sporting good shops and have noticed something in my area, there seems to be a growing presents of a group looking at and trying to by assault type rifles. Just a passing observation, no data to back it up. Maybe both side are worried about Nov. Don't know about the rest of you but I remember the 60's very well.

VBshooter wrote:Our "tolerance" ,if not curtailed soon will lead to our ruin in short order. By taking advantage of our PC and other social nonsense they are emboldened to push their BS to the limits.

BUT, our tolerance is what makes us so special! Sure they're screaming "Allah is great" while trying trying to blow us up, but I'm SURE if we just sing the "Barney Song" enough times they're bound to see what spineless yellow bellies we are and leave us alone.

/sarcasm

GS78 wrote:... just the same way France...

Ummm, France would like a word with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/1 ... 44433.html

We're losing the country to a lot more than Islam, I can tell you.

I can just imagine the outcry if we were to try and ban the Cousin IT look here,,, Obama and company would shut the damn country down and try to reeducate everyone to be (I hate this word) "tolerant" . At least France has a little bit of guts to address some of their freaking nonsense,, Now if they can just knock off the bias towards other religions, the HONOR?? killings and all the other dog and pony garbage they;d still only be half way to a solution....

Well, France is a little different (and I mean that in the nicest way ). The ban had very wide support, and I believe that Islam is the 2nd most practiced religion in France. Relative to their overall population, there are also a far greater number of Muslims in France than there are in the US. So, if any country was in danger of being overrun...

Defeat by government subsidy and leftist subversion

Closer.

More like, 'divided we stand'...

chfaunce wrote:Closer.

More like, 'divided we stand'...

If standing up to Socialism and Islamic agression is considered "divided", then I'm all for it.

I was looking at a bigger picture.

chfaunce wrote:I was looking at a bigger picture.

Hmm........

Islam attempting to dominate the world. Socialism attacking basic freedoms and bankrupting the nation.


Doesn't get much bigger than that.

Looking at history, one might say the same about Christianity. I also don't think you truly understand the definition of socialism, outside of what is discussed on Fox News. And, if the last few years are any indication, unregulated capitalism seems to have put a financial hurtin' on the economy, too!

You know reading a lot of the post above it got me thinking about when the other day one of my friends sent me an email with a Youtube link and one of the associated links on the side bar caught my attention. I had never heard of this preacher but the title of his video is what caught my attention:

White folks are gonna rise up! Preacher David Manning

And this preacher I must say has no love at all for President Obama None at all. I know he is off the radical end But just how far off the radical end is he really. I think he need to tak the "White" out of it and just say Folks and I think he might be spot on as I know a lot of folks of different race and creed across this nation are not happy.

Rick I hope this is not to radical for you if it is then please edit as you see fit.

Pffft. Wait, obligatory: that's racist!

Actually, according to this guy, nothing's going to matter soon anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz8CNaU51iQ

Knowledge is evil and we're all going to die... or something.

chfaunce wrote:Looking at history, one might say the same about Christianity.

Same old argument that's been proven ridiculous time and again. Not gonna waste my time with failed overused troll posts.

chfaunce wrote:I also don't think you truly understand the definition of socialism, outside of what is discussed on Fox News.

Instead of discussing the issue or providing the "bigger picture" as you like to call it, you attack Fox News (not sure what they have to do with it) and seek to undermine my intelligence as a defense. Nice job Rosie!

chfaunce wrote:And, if the last few years are any indication, unregulated capitalism seems to have put a financial hurtin' on the economy, too!

I haven't seen unregulated capitalism in a LONG time. Not sure what you're talking about.

TheGodfather wrote:Instead of discussing the issue or providing the "bigger picture" as you like to call it, you attack Fox News (not sure what they have to do with it) and seek to undermine my intelligence as a defense. Nice job Rosie!

I haven't seen unregulated capitalism in a LONG time. Not sure what you're talking about.

No, Ben, I'm not attacking your intelligence. I'm simply questioning your overall understanding of socialism.

Open your eyes and read a newspaper sometime. The collapse of the real estate market and Wall Street was by and large a result of unregulated (or at least very poorly regulated) capitalism.

chfaunce wrote:No, Ben, I'm not attacking your intelligence. I'm simply questioning your overall understanding of socialism.

Ah, yes. Socialism is such a difficult concept to understand, conservatives couldn't possibly know a thing about it. Your "simple questioning" is nothing more than a way to pretend to be "nice" and insult at the same time.

chfaunce wrote:Open your eyes and read a newspaper sometime.

I tend to forget to do that. Thanks for reminding me Rosie.

chfaunce wrote:The collapse of the real estate market and Wall Street was by and large a result of unregulated (or at least very poorly regulated) capitalism.

Well there's a BIG difference between unregulated and poorly regulated. Which is it?

Have a good one, Ben.

I think you've made my point for me. No further input required.

chfaunce wrote:Pffft. Wait, obligatory: that's racist!

Actually, according to this guy, nothing's going to matter soon anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz8CNaU51iQ

Knowledge is evil and we're all going to die... or something.

I'm not sure what the linked video has to do with Taggure's video? It seems to me you are just trolling.

TheGodfather wrote:

chfaunce wrote:Looking at history, one might say the same about Christianity.

Same old argument that's been proven ridiculous time and again. Not gonna waste my time with failed overused troll posts.

Ya, they always bring up the crusades, but apparently never have read anything about them because the Christians were simply coming to the aid of their brothers who were attacked by the Muslims or were trying to liberate other Christian countries and areas from the Muslim invader. Ya, I know, not PC.

What was wrong with the crusades was the churches promise of spiritual "rewards" for fighting. The clash of civilizations is not unlike what we are facing today. Allow me to educate you. I'll even use that bastion of Christian thinking called Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

First Crusade

In March 1095 at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks. Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins.

Again, the issue was not that other "Christian" nations and peoples were called upon to assist in the defense, but rather that they promised them the false spiritual reward of remission for their sins. The Bible doesn't teach that. Just who where the Seljuk Turks?

The Seljuq (also Seljuq Turks[2], Seldjuks, Seldjuqs, Seljuks; in Turkish Selçuklular; in Persian: سلجوقيان Ṣaljūqīyān; in Arabic سلجوق Saljūq, pl. السلاجقة al-Salājiqa) were a Turco-Persian[3] [4][5][6] Sunni Muslim dynasty that ruled parts of Central Asia and the Middle East from the 11th to 14th centuries.

Round 1 for the Christians not being the aggressors. They were under attack by the Muslims because the Muslim were (and still are) required by their religion to conquer the world and kill the infidels.


Second Crusade

After a period of relative peace in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Muslims conquered the town of Edessa.

Just what was Edessa?

The County of Edessa was one of the Crusader states in the 12th century, based around Edessa, a city with an ancient history and an early tradition of Christianity.

Round 2 for the Christians. Again, they were being conquered by the Muslims and the Crusaders went to help.


Third Crusade

In 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, conquered Jerusalem after nearly a century under Christian rule, following the Battle of Hattin. After the Christians surrendered the city, Saladin spared the civilians and for the most part left churches and shrines untouched to be able to collect ransom money from the Franks.[30] Several thousand apparently were not redeemed and probably were sold into slavery.

Just who was Saladin?

Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Kurdish: سه‌لاحه‌دین ئه‌یوبی, Selah'edînê Eyubî, Arabic: صلاح الدين يوسف بن أيوب‎) (c. 1138 – March 4, 1193), better known in the Western world as Saladin, was a Kurdish[2][3] Muslim, who became the first Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt and Syria

Round 3 for the Christians (note: I'm not saying the Christians won all of the Crusades, but rather they were not out to conquer to world for God like the liberals want you to believe).


Forth Crusade

The Fourth Crusade was initiated in 1202 by Pope Innocent III, with the intention of invading the Holy Land through Egypt.

Ya, this one isn't so hot. The intentions was still to free the holy land that was lost during the Third Crusade. We often call this today the tyranny of good intentions and both sides of the political isle practice it.

The Crusaders were redirected to capture Zara (Zadar) in 1202 to pay the Venetians for ships and transport of the army over the sea. Constantinople would be captured for prince Alexius IV in 1204 in exchange for men, money, weapons and more ships. Innocent III was horrified by the attack on the Byzantines. By attacking Zara they had automatically been excommunicated according to Innocent's threats. Prior to the launching of the Crusade he had insisted that no Christian cities be attacked.

I'm not sure how to score this one. The intention was to reclaim land that was lost, but it clearly turned sour due to greed. I think no one wins this one.


Fifth Crusade

By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade afoot, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land...

Again, the intention was to recapture Jerusalem which had only fallen 30 years before in 1187.


Sixth Crusade

Emperor Frederick II had repeatedly vowed a crusade...through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success: Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem were delivered to the crusaders for a period of ten years...Many of the Muslims though were not happy with Al-Kamil for giving up control of Jerusalem and in 1244, following a siege, the Muslims regained control of the city.

The third through sixth crusades, while distinct periods of a couple years, weren't that far apart and it could be argued were all the same conflict. The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 1187 and in the space of one generation the Christians tried four times to regain their holy city.

Liberals love to point to these middle crusades as proof Christianity was picking the fight, but I think that ignores the bigger picture. The big picture shows that a generation of Christians lost Jerusalem and tried to take it back several times, without success until the sixth crusade. These series of crusades were really just one larger struggle that the Muslims picked by conquering Jerusalem in 1187, but due to resources the Christians couldn't sustain the fight and there were years of regrouping.

It is important to note how each of these ended. The third ended only because Richard didn't think he could hold the city after capturing it (because most of his army would leave). It is generally assumed that the third crusaders could have captured Jerusalem as the Muslims agreed to a treaty which left them in control of the city, but Christian pilgrims would be free to come and go. The forth is wacky, the fifth ended with a eight year treat when the Christians surrendered and the sixth with a ten year. The yearly requirement lends credibility to the idea that this was just campaigns of a larger continuing conflict. I.e. when you put a yearly requirement on peace, it really is just a pause in the war.

The Muslims conquered the city of Jerusalem again in 1244. Which sets up...


Seventh Crusade

In 1244, the Khwarezmians, recently displaced by the advance of the Mongols, took Jerusalem on their way to ally with the Egyptian Mamluks. This returned Jerusalem to Muslim control, but the fall of Jerusalem was no longer an earth-shattering event to European Christians, who had seen the city pass from Christian to Muslim control numerous times in the past two centuries. This time, despite calls from the Pope, there was no popular enthusiasm for a new crusade.

This was mostly about corrupt leaders, not the followers of Christianity.


Eighth Crusade

The eighth Crusade was organized by Louis IX in 1270, again sailing from Aigues-Mortes, initially to come to the aid of the remnants of the crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying. For his efforts, Louis was later canonised. The Eighth Crusade is sometimes counted as the Seventh, if the Fifth and Sixth Crusades are counted as a single crusade. The Ninth Crusade is sometimes also counted as part of the Eighth.

The eighth was like the first and second. They went to help out other nations who were under attack.


Ninth Crusade

Following the Mamluk victory over the Mongols in 1260 at the Battle of Ain Jalut by Qutuz and his general Baibars, Qutuz was assassinated, leaving Baibars to claim the sultanate for himself. As Sultan, Baibars proceeded to attack the Christian crusaders at Arsuf, Athlith, Haifa, Safad, Jaffa, Ascalon, and Caesarea. As the Crusader fortress cities fell one by one, the Christians sought help from Europe, but assistance was slow in coming.

In 1268 Baibars captured Antioch, thereby destroying the last remnant of the Principality of Antioch, securing the Mamluk northern front and threatening the small Crusader County of Tripoli.

Louis IX of France, having already organized a large crusader army with the intent of attacking Egypt, was diverted instead to Tunis, where Louis himself died in 1270.

The ninth was suppose to be like the first, second and eighth. Coming to the aid of other Christian nations.


It all comes down to this:

By the end of the 4th century, following the Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity (313) and later the founding of the Byzantine Empire after the partition of the Roman Empire, the Holy Land had become a predominantly Christian region.[8][9] Churches commemorating various events in the life of Jesus had been erected at key sites...

The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the initial Muslim conquest of Syria in the 7th century under the Rashidun Caliphs...

Another factor that contributed to the change in Western attitudes towards the East came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1039 his successor, after requiring large sums be paid for the right, permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it.[10] Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt, but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed.[citation needed] The Muslims eventually realized that much of the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims; for this reason and others, the persecution of pilgrims eventually stopped.[11] However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread support for the Crusades across the Christian world.[12]

The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim aggression. Sure, in the middle the Christians choose to continue the fight after a few years of peace, but fundamentally, the Muslim picked that fight. If the Muslims hadn't been attacking Christian nations, conquering the Christian holy land and persecuting Christian pilgrims, the Crusades would never have happened. Sure, the corrupt Catholic church used the Crusades at times for their own gain (not unlike our own politicians do with other wars), but that only could happen because of the Muslim aggression towards Christianity.

The Crusades are often used to "show" that Christianity also was out to conquer the world, but it is a false narrative. All of the Crusades were about coming to the aid of Christian's under attack by Muslims or reclaiming ground that was lost to the Muslim aggressor several years earlier. Christianity has no such call to conquer the world by the sword like Islam does and even a cursory reading of the Crusades shows that argument to be a red herring.

Here is a though provoking idea. Why is it you no longer hear about these places the Muslim conquered? Why do the countries and people not exist anymore? Simple. The Muslims really were conquers and when they won, they killed or sold into slavery everyone. When a culture lost a war to a Muslim invader, they quit existing.

chfaunce wrote:And, if the last few years are any indication, unregulated capitalism seems to have put a financial hurtin' on the economy, too!

I haven't seen unregulated capitalism in a LONG time. Not sure what you're talking about.

Yes, this isn't capitalism and hasn't been for generations. It makes for a convenient scape goat though.