Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I avoided reading this thread for a while, simply because I find the bigotry that generally follows this entire sort of premise that distasteful.

All of you saying "Islam is the enemy", or anything else like it, should be damned ashamed of yourselves. You are not acting like Americans. And you wonder why we as a group get viewed like Bubba-boy bigots....

Need I keep throwing this in your faces time and again??



Yeah...a real enemy to America there...why don't you send his family a letter telling them so? They should be pretty easy to find.

Caps85, thank you for your service, too. Whether it's considered "correct" for a former Air Force member to say it or not, right now I don't care: Semper Fi, bro.

A locust is a harmless creature, until you have swarms of them. Islamic "immigrants" are the same. Everywhere you look at communities that have been overrun by Islamic immigrants you have a general decline in living standards and social upheaval, usually followed by cries of bigotry by rightwing fanatic religious types who do not want the poor muslims to be allowed to "govern" themselves by "their" laws....of course this is another form of religous discrimination on the part of mean spirited American rednecks who refuse to allow these productive members of society to beat ,rape and sometimes KILL their wives and children out of adherence of Islamic religious traditions and moral codes.

...please don't respond if the only thing you have is a tombstone picture.....in fact next time you feel the urge to exploit someones death, show us the burnt , mutilated bodies of the security detail swinging from a bridge outside of Bagdad, or the daniel pearl beheading would be a nice change-up...

......When people come HERE they should assimilate or stay the F**K OUT. I am sick of the apologists who constantly stand against this country while organizations like La Raza, and CAIR and other human cockroaches undermine our culture with their refuse.

CowboyT wrote:I avoided reading this thread for a while, simply because I find the bigotry that generally follows this entire sort of premise that distasteful.

All of you saying "Islam is the enemy", or anything else like it, should be damned ashamed of yourselves. You are not acting like Americans. And you wonder why we as a group get viewed like Bubba-boy bigots....

Need I keep throwing this in your faces time and again??



Yeah...a real enemy to America there...why don't you send his family a letter telling them so? They should be pretty easy to find.

Caps85, thank you for your service, too. Whether it's considered "correct" for a former Air Force member to say it or not, right now I don't care: Semper Fi, bro.

Your much posted picture presumably would disprove the statement: all Muslims are terrorists. (although I should note that it only does so for all in the formal, absolute sense, not in a statistically meaningful sense...you need other proof of that)

However, I don't recall anyone saying that. The statement is more: most terrorists are Muslim. For that argument, your picture is irrelevant, so what is the point in reposting it and name calling? Would you post a picture of a dead soldiers tomb who was male if I made the following statement: most terrorists are male? How about most terrorists are 18-35 (made the age range up for illustrative purposes)? I'm sure I can find many more soldiers tombs who are in that age range, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You are creating a strawman which your picture is proof enough for you to knock it down. I.e. you started with your conclusion and then worked backwards to find the argument is works against (which most strawmen do). Instead of avoiding the thread or posting irrelevant posts, why don't you read it and actually respond rationally to the points argued herein?

caps85 wrote: And you obviously failed to recognize that the battles I listed were Christian battles, your attitude of ignorance and condescension is absolutely disgusting and frankly I do not even wish to dignify your crap with a response. And by the way, unless you are in the USMC and outrank me you don't have the right to teach me anything about warfare. If you would like to, I recommend you go to your local recruiting center and sign up! Oh and let me play your immature game of historical reference,

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)"

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD." (Numbers 31:16 - the passage you quote was in reference was to a specific incident regarding Peor. Not a blanket, non-ending statement against all idolaters. Nice try, though.

caps85 wrote: "I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42)"

The Song of Moses?

37"And He will say, 'Where are their gods,
The rock in which they sought refuge?
....
42'I will make My arrows drunk with blood,
(CI)And My sword will devour flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
From the long-haired leaders of the enemy.'
Taking God's word out of context and passing it off as man's word, huh? I have no problem with God seeking vengeance, but don't pass off the word of God for what man said. I asked for intelligent discussion...I chose a passage out of the Quran and asked you to explain it, yet you can't do that - you retort by quoting passages out of context - which I admit I did, but I was hoping "intelligent discussion" would nudge you into explaining what many Muslims feel is taken out of context. I was giving you a free pass to expound on this, what many call a "teaching moment".

caps85 wrote: “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)"

Who is "I"? In context, this is the parable of the talents - and "I" here is Jesus, the son of God. It's not an open ended "slay everyone" verse... it's a parable of a specific instance of rebellion, again.

caps85 wrote: Feel like a big man for hopping on google and watching cable news and then claiming to be educated on a religious tradition you know nothing about? People with your types of attitudes contribute absolutely nothing positive to the future of our country, and you have convinced me that it isn't worth it to continue posting here. You can't even be bothered to read what I wrote in its entirety before starting to spout nonsense about how I didn't absorb what was in your video simply because you aren't educated enough about your own religious tradition to recognize what I was talking about. The French and Indian war? What are you even getting at? My advice is get an education so you're actually qualified to have that superior attitude of yours, or maybe spend a few tours in the sandbox so you can at least have SOME sort of credibility when it comes to instructing soldiers about "warfare". Anyways, now I'm done here for good so happy trails.

So educate me? I've researched your religion and witnessed actual video of children being taught that America is evil and must be brought down. I've researched more on this subject that I care to expound upon. The French and Indian war was a religious war - the British sent troops to stop the French expansion in 1754 in part because the British had experienced a freedom of religion that they feared would end with the French Catholics and the papacy expanding and controlling them. Many wars are fought over religion. But, since you brought it up and you care not about the long ago past history, lets get to recent history. Please tell me how many Christians have blown up airports, train stations, and flown planes into buildings killing thousands of innocent.

CowboyT wrote:I avoided reading this thread for a while, simply because I find the bigotry that generally follows this entire sort of premise that distasteful.

All of you saying "Islam is the enemy", or anything else like it, should be damned ashamed of yourselves. You are not acting like Americans. And you wonder why we as a group get viewed like Bubba-boy bigots....

Need I keep throwing this in your faces time and again??



Yeah...a real enemy to America there...why don't you send his family a letter telling them so? They should be pretty easy to find.

Caps85, thank you for your service, too. Whether it's considered "correct" for a former Air Force member to say it or not, right now I don't care: Semper Fi, bro.

I never said anything about anyone's military service, nor did I attack anyone's military service. I simply answered a question that was posed, and I'll be damned if I apologize for it. I also never stated that all Muslims were terrorists - simply that the vast, overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims.

Need I keep throwing this in your face??
Or this??

caps85 wrote:

CCFan wrote:

caps85 wrote:
I'm sorry, I fail to see what a list of historical battles being listed off has to do with modern Islam and how it exists in America. If you're interested in naming off historical battles without context and attempting to state that they somehow hold political and ethical relevance over a thousand years later perhaps I can get in on the game? How about the battle of Steding in 1234 CE where nearly 20,000 men women and children were killed for refusing to pay taxes to the church? The sack of Jerusalem by an invading crusader army in 1099 that killed an estimated 80,000 defenseless civilians, including Muslims, Jews, and Semitic Christians? Or Perhaps the fourth crusade which killed tens of thousands of orthodox Christians? The Albigensians, the 1572 slaughter of the Huguenots, etc. If you think that me listing off those events, or others are absurd and have no place in a discussion about a modern issue, you are absolutely right, just as those mentioned in the video have no place in the same discussion. Please understand that every religion has a history like this, it is in fact that nature of man and has nothing to do with the modern day. Just as slavery was once accepted as commonplace but is now viewed as a travesty, other aspects of our human condition have evolved as well. For you to reference this as your main idea to me indicates nothing more than an attempt to disregard any possibility of meaningful discourse with people living in your own community and represents an attitude of arrogance and ignorance. Not all Marines feel the way that those in the video do, at least not this one - Adam

You obviously didn't watch the video and absorb what he said. Specifically, the battles that he cited all dealt with Islamic battles - he didn't cite the French and Indian war, did he?

Any military leader will tell you to study your enemy and their history. Not my fault if you don't want to do it, and not my job to teach it to you.

You want meaningful discourse? Explain this verse to me:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Surah 9:5

And please don't give me that crap about it being a "historical" verse taken out of context. If it's so out of context, why is most of the western world so concerned with being on the alert for terrorism? And like Gunderwood stated - the vast majority of terrorism comes from Muslims - New Your on 9/11, 2004 Madrid bombings in Spain, 2007 Glasgow airport bombing...Shall I continue?

And you obviously failed to recognize that the battles I listed were Christian battles, your attitude of ignorance and condescension is absolutely disgusting and frankly I do not even wish to dignify your crap with a response. And by the way, unless you are in the USMC and outrank me you don't have the right to teach me anything about warfare. If you would like to, I recommend you go to your local recruiting center and sign up!

The fact that Muslims or Christians or Atheists fought in any particular war or battle is irrelevant. Such logic would allow you to claim that the American Revolution was a religious war because a bunch of Christians fought. Certainly some Christian principles were fought for, but that wasn't why the war was fought. On the surface, the naming of battles is irrelevant, unless you understand the deeper context of why he named those battles (don't think he came up with that list off the top of his head, most people prepare their basic arguments and facts beforehand). Let's look at the battles he mentioned.

Battle of Tours

The Battle of Tours followed 23 years[clarification needed] of Umayyad conquests in Europe which had begun with the invasion of the Visigothic Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula in 711. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

The kingdom survived until 711, when King Roderic (Rodrigo) was killed while opposing an invasion from the south by the Umayyad Muslims in the Battle of Guadalete on July 19. This marked the beginning of the Muslim conquest of Hispania in which most of the peninsula came under Islamic rule by 718. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths# ... ic_kingdom

Muslim military expansion, get use to the theme.

Battle of Lapento

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto
The Battle of Lepanto took place on 7 October 1571 when a fleet of the Holy League, a coalition of Spain (including its territories of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia), the Republic of Venice, the Papacy, the Republic of Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, the Knights Hospitaller and others, decisively defeated the main fleet of the Ottoman Empire.

The Christian coalition had been promoted by Pope Pius V to rescue the Venetian colony of Famagusta, in the Cyprus island, which was being besieged by the Turks in the early 1571; the siege followed the fall of Nicosia and other Venetian possessions in Cyprus during 1570.

Again, fending off Muslim military expansion.

The Battle of Vienna

The Battle of Vienna (German: Schlacht am Kahlenberg, Polish: Bitwa pod Wiedniem or Odsiecz Wiedeńska, Turkish: İkinci Viyana Kuşatması, Ukrainian: Віденська відсіч / Viděns'ka Vidsič) took place on the 11 and 12 of September[2] 1683 after Vienna had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Naturally, the Ottoman Wars in Europe attracted support from the West, where the advancing and powerful Islamic state was seen as a threat to Christendom in Europe. The Crusades of Nicopolis and of Varna marked the most determined attempts by Europe to halt the Turkic advance into Central Europe and the Balkans. For a while the Ottomans were too busy trying to put down Balkan rebels such as Vlad Dracula. However, the defeat of these and other rebellious vassal states opened up Central Europe to Ottoman invasion. The Kingdom of Hungary now bordered the Ottoman Empire and its vassals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2 ... sburg_wars

Seems to be getting old, more Christians banding together to fight off a Muslim invasion...

Constantinople 1453

The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of the capital of the Byzantine Empire which occurred after a siege by the Ottoman Empire, under the command of Sultan Mehmed II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

When in 1451 the bankrupt Byzantines asked Mehmed to double the tribute for holding an Ottoman pretender for the throne, he used the request as a pretext for annulling all treaties with the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, when he proposed in 1452 to siege Constantinople most of the divan, and especially the Grand Vizier, Çandarlı Halil Pasha, was against it and criticized the Sultan for being too rash and overconfident in his abilities. On April 15, 1452, Mehmed ordered preparations to be made for the siege of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_th ... _Mehmed_II

Ah, finally some Christian political corruption...which was still just used as an excuse to continue Muslim expansion.

A consistent theme of Muslim expansion to subdue the world to Islam. Christians get a bad rap for the Crusades, but most of those were in response to the Muslim invader. I've posted on this before, but you should do your own reading. I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

As West said, this isn't a fight against a religion, it is a fight against a "Theo-political belief system and construct." That system believes that the whole world must be subdued and that it is the job of good Muslims to advance the cause (for which they will be rewarded too).

Oh and let me play your immature game of historical reference,

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)"
"I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh" (Deut. 32:42)"
“I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)"

Violence, in of itself, is not wrong. If it were, then self defense and CC would be inherently wrong as well. SD is a violent activity and we do have discussions about how hollow pionts work, why you want them, etc. Those are not nice topics, but they are necessary topics because proper SD is inherently good. The same actions can be right or wrong depending on why there were done. This should not be confused with relativism. Instead it belies the fact that violence is not the real issue, something else is. A verse which suggests violence, in of itself, is irrelevant. We must expand the context and understand why violence is being advised. Doing anything else is the logical equivalent of pulling out one sentence on this forum which suggests you use hollow points because they do more damage. The text could be found in a call to murder, in which case it would be wrong. Or it could be found (and likely is on this forum) in a call to self defense, in which case it would be right. The call to use HPs because they are more destructive, in of itself, is neither good or bad.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about any particular text in the Bible vs. the Koran, I'd be happy to oblige. Simply choose one verse and I'll choose one and we can discuss how they are similar or different and why they are good or bad. I expect references and commentaries to be required from mainstream religious leaders on both sides.

People with your types of attitudes contribute absolutely nothing positive to the future of our country, and you have convinced me that it isn't worth it to continue posting here.

If your positions are valid, you should be able to argue them effectively. It may come down to both or multiple sides all having valid arguments (logically true), but still not agreeing because of presuppositions; in which case we can argue those.

You can't even be bothered to read what I wrote in its entirety before starting to spout nonsense about how I didn't absorb what was in your video simply because you aren't educated enough about your own religious tradition to recognize what I was talking about. The French and Indian war? What are you even getting at? My advice is get an education so you're actually qualified to have that superior attitude of yours,

If you are going to make such a strong claim you should back it up with explicit examples and reason. Otherwise, it comes off as just name calling and flaming.

or maybe spend a few tours in the sandbox so you can at least have SOME sort of credibility when it comes to instructing soldiers about "warfare". Anyways, now I'm done here for good so happy trails.

Depending on how you define "warfare," having been in the sandbox may make you uniquely disqualified to discuss it.

E.g. Human beings tend to have strong emotions when someone is trying to kill them. Those strong emotions may cloud their judgment or bias their position unfairly. This is especially true when discussing strategy rather than low level tactics. For example, the stupid calls to just nuke everything or kill everyone. Those are only viable tactics if they are the best options for your strategic objectives...I'd suggest for the current wars they are not compatible.

Furthermore, being in the military does not make one an expert on "warfare," particularly when discussing strategy. Most members of the military are taught fighting skills and tactics. Strategy is something very few are taught and even fewer are good at. History remembers those who were good at it, but those who simply made due (most) are quickly forgotten. Being a skilled fighter does not make anyone inherently a skilled thinker. In fact, the requirements for a skilled fighter may make most such fighters poor strategic commanders (in fact this is why I would argue there have been so few truly great commanders throughout history). Certainly fighting experience is worth something, but to claim those without it are unfit to discuss warfare in this context is ignorant. Strategy is inherently a thinking game rather than a muscle game and I prefer to let a man's arguments stand or fall on their own reason.

gunderwood wrote: Your much posted picture presumably would disprove the statement: all Muslims are terrorists. (although I should note that it only does so for all in the formal, absolute sense, not in a statistically meaningful sense...you need other proof of that)

However, I don't recall anyone saying that. The statement is more: most terrorists are Muslim. For that argument, your picture is irrelevant, so what is the point in reposting it and name calling? Would you post a picture of a dead soldiers tomb who was male if I made the following statement: most terrorists are male? How about most terrorists are 18-35 (made the age range up for illustrative purposes)? I'm sure I can find many more soldiers tombs who are in that age range, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You didn't say that. Rather, you're directly attacking a religious group. Cut out the bigotry; I've met you, and I know you're smarter than that.

gunderwood wrote: You are creating a strawman which your picture is proof enough for you to knock it down. I.e. you started with your conclusion and then worked backwards to find the argument is works against (which most strawmen do). Instead of avoiding the thread or posting irrelevant posts, why don't you read it and actually respond rationally to the points argued herein?

I just did. Wake up and read it again. Keep up the bigoted tone here, and you'll show me something about you that I really hope isn't true.

CowboyT wrote:

gunderwood wrote: Your much posted picture presumably would disprove the statement: all Muslims are terrorists. (although I should note that it only does so for all in the formal, absolute sense, not in a statistically meaningful sense...you need other proof of that)

However, I don't recall anyone saying that. The statement is more: most terrorists are Muslim. For that argument, your picture is irrelevant, so what is the point in reposting it and name calling? Would you post a picture of a dead soldiers tomb who was male if I made the following statement: most terrorists are male? How about most terrorists are 18-35 (made the age range up for illustrative purposes)? I'm sure I can find many more soldiers tombs who are in that age range, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You didn't say that. Rather, you're directly attacking a religious group. Cut out the bigotry; I've met you, and I know you're smarter than that.

No CowboyT, you're not reading what gunderwood is writing. He's not saying that most or all Muslims are terrorists. He's saying that most of the current crop of terrorists are Muslims (and for brevity, he's talking about terror against the US). But he is not attacking a religious group. If you don't believe that is the case, then please point out those terrorists attempting to attack the US in the past 20 years on behalf of Irish independence, Buddhist faith, etc.. etc..

Now GS78 is making some fairly offensive, bigotted statements. What he is saying about Muslims is very much in line with what people said about Catholics in the mid-1800's.

LFS wrote:

CowboyT wrote:

gunderwood wrote: Your much posted picture presumably would disprove the statement: all Muslims are terrorists. (although I should note that it only does so for all in the formal, absolute sense, not in a statistically meaningful sense...you need other proof of that)

However, I don't recall anyone saying that. The statement is more: most terrorists are Muslim. For that argument, your picture is irrelevant, so what is the point in reposting it and name calling? Would you post a picture of a dead soldiers tomb who was male if I made the following statement: most terrorists are male? How about most terrorists are 18-35 (made the age range up for illustrative purposes)? I'm sure I can find many more soldiers tombs who are in that age range, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

You didn't say that. Rather, you're directly attacking a religious group. Cut out the bigotry; I've met you, and I know you're smarter than that.

No CowboyT, you're not reading what gunderwood is writing. He's not saying that most or all Muslims are terrorists. He's saying that most of the current crop of terrorists are Muslims (and for brevity, he's talking about terror against the US). But he is not attacking a religious group. If you don't believe that is the case, then please point out those terrorists attempting to attack the US in the past 20 years on behalf of Irish independence, Buddhist faith, etc.. etc..

Now GS78 is making some fairly offensive, bigotted statements. What he is saying about Muslims is very much in line with what people said about Catholics in the mid-1800's.

Exactly.

The order in which it is stated drastically changes the meaning. Saying most Muslims are terrorists is a vastly different statement than most terrorists are Muslim. While I'm mostly concerned with terrorism against the US, I still am concerned about terrorism period. I think the statement, most terrorists are Muslim holds true regardless of who was attacked. E.g. during the month of Ramadan, the number of Muslim terrorist attacks against other Muslims has averaged around 1,000 or approximately 30 a day!

............


Its funny.

gunderwood wrote: The order in which it is stated drastically changes the meaning. Saying most Muslims are terrorists is a vastly different statement than most terrorists are Muslim. While I'm mostly concerned with terrorism against the US, I still am concerned about terrorism period. I think the statement, most terrorists are Muslim holds true regardless of who was attacked. E.g. during the month of Ramadan, the number of Muslim terrorist attacks against other Muslims has averaged around 1,000 or approximately 30 a day!

A worldwide breakdown of terror acts by cause and target would be useful. While Muslim terrorists are certainly a high number and likely the majority, I'm not yet convinced that it is "most". I am not saying "most" is wrong, but there are a lot of things that happen in the world that we don't hear about thanks to our insular MSM. For instance, there is a lot of terrorism in Africa... some of it related to Islam... but a lot of it related to mining and pseudo-communist interests, etc... Then there is the narco-terrorism that has been going on for years in Central and South America and now in full-bloom in Mexico. And in this country we've had eco-terrorists even though they have not been as deadly as the more conventional types.

CCFan wrote:

CowboyT wrote:I avoided reading this thread for a while, simply because I find the bigotry that generally follows this entire sort of premise that distasteful.

All of you saying "Islam is the enemy", or anything else like it, should be damned ashamed of yourselves. You are not acting like Americans. And you wonder why we as a group get viewed like Bubba-boy bigots....

Need I keep throwing this in your faces time and again??



Yeah...a real enemy to America there...why don't you send his family a letter telling them so? They should be pretty easy to find.

Caps85, thank you for your service, too. Whether it's considered "correct" for a former Air Force member to say it or not, right now I don't care: Semper Fi, bro.

I never said anything about anyone's military service, nor did I attack anyone's military service. I simply answered a question that was posed, and I'll be damned if I apologize for it. I also never stated that all Muslims were terrorists - simply that the vast, overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslims.

Need I keep throwing this in your face??

911.jpg

Or this??

When you make posts stating I don't have the right to exist in this country or that I am a terrorist based upon my religion, then yes you are denigrating my military service to my country. Notice this thread is titled "How Islam will defeat the USA" not "How terrorists will defeat the USA" and then please explain how you have not been anything more than a bigot in this discussion.

As an aside, gunderwood, please go read about some of the massacres I have listed, if you would like to explain to me how various pogroms conducted in Europe or the cleansing of the Huguenots from France were not religiously motivated when they occurred at the behest of the medieval church, I would be delighted to hear. This is basic undergraduate level history here and before you start making bold claims about how your history is so morally superior to every other cultural or religious groups in the world, please at least bother to read up on yourself. I never tried to bring up these thousands of years old battles to prove my point, but simply posted to them to respond to how absurd I feel it is for you to reference them as evidence in a discussion on current affairs. As far as knowledge of strategy or competence as a warrior, I first would like to ask you what your current profession is and what your background in the field is, since you feel more qualified than me to speak on the subject, and I also would like to point out that I work at the OCS currently, and while I may not be a general, I have at least some idea of what strategy is, but please feel free to quote Merriam Webster for me in the future.

I know I promised I wouldn't post again but I just can't manage to wrap my head around how you guys can feel so strongly that your beliefs are the one and only single way, and that nobody else could possibly be right or have an opposing point of view. You might not realize it, but 90% of what you have said has been nothing short of extreme, and will do nothing but further alienate people who fall under the category of moderate.

caps85 wrote:When you make posts stating I don't have the right to exist in this country or that I am a terrorist based upon my religion, then yes you are denigrating my military service to my country. Notice this thread is titled "How Islam will defeat the USA" not "How terrorists will defeat the USA" and then please explain how you have not been anything more than a bigot in this discussion.

No one is suggesting that you are a terrorist based on your religion. I think it's just been simply stated that the goal of Islam, in general, is to consume the world with the "There is no God but Allah" mantra. Islam doesn't co-exist well with other religions because of this view. The mechanism by which Islam is currently trying to overtake the world is terrorism. Pure and simple.

Also - you tossed out the word "Moderate"... It seems that this word is being used a lot in our MSM to try to make it seem as though the "Moderates" pose no danger to our way of life. However, a lot of these so-called "Moderates" are preaching daily with quite extreme views against our culture.

So, the point that I'm trying to make is - don't practice your religion in the US unless you plan to assimilate with the rest of our culture (which you seem to have accomplished) - take the good with the bad, and don't push extremist Islamic views onto a congregation in a mosque within US borders. Either get along with our culture, or leave and go live with the Taliban under Sharia law. Do Not try to bring Sharia law to the US, as it is a very clear violation of our way of life based on the separation of church and state.

If that view is bigoted, then get your label gun out right now and stick it to me.

Also - to get back very specifically to the topic of this thread...

The "Moderate" label that the MSM throws around all the time is being placed on people who are not so moderate, as I stated in my previous post. The MSM is downplaying the extremism and allowing Islam to permeate our country in a way that won't be stopped quickly enough for us to help ourselves. The First Amendment protects these "Moderates" and gives them free reign to spout whatever vile, angry, antagonistic words that they want to use to sway the people of their congregations. It is my opinion that people of this nature should be labeled "Enemies of the State" and deported or brought up on federal charges.

When the US is 50% Islam in the next couple of generations and we begin seeing extremist elements within the United States - burning of churches and synagogues, localized application of Sharia law (which is already occurring in many compounds within the US), bombings of bars and night clubs - this is when the US will have truly lost the fight against Islam. Islam is building its army within our borders for a siege the likes of which none of us have ever seen.

God help us.

allingeneral wrote:

caps85 wrote:When you make posts stating I don't have the right to exist in this country or that I am a terrorist based upon my religion, then yes you are denigrating my military service to my country. Notice this thread is titled "How Islam will defeat the USA" not "How terrorists will defeat the USA" and then please explain how you have not been anything more than a bigot in this discussion.

No one is suggesting that you are a terrorist based on your religion. I think it's just been simply stated that the goal of Islam, in general, is to consume the world with the "There is no God but Allah" mantra. Islam doesn't co-exist well with other religions because of this view. The mechanism by which Islam is currently trying to overtake the world is terrorism. Pure and simple.

Also - you tossed out the word "Moderate"... It seems that this word is being used a lot in our MSM to try to make it seem as though the "Moderates" pose no danger to our way of life. However, a lot of these so-called "Moderates" are preaching daily with quite extreme views against our culture.

So, the point that I'm trying to make is - don't practice your religion in the US unless you plan to assimilate with the rest of our culture (which you seem to have accomplished) - take the good with the bad, and don't push extremist Islamic views onto a congregation in a mosque within US borders. Either get along with our culture, or leave and go live with the Taliban under Sharia law. Do Not try to bring Sharia law to the US, as it is a very clear violation of our way of life based on the separation of church and state.

If that view is bigoted, then get your label gun out right now and stick it to me.

If you don't mind sharing, who are these moderates to whom you refer? Have you ever visited a middle eastern country? Are you seriously implying that all, or most, or half of Muslims are attempting to bring Sharia law to the US? The vast majority of them do not even want it in their own country. Just as a moderate Christian American wouldn't try and bomb abortion clinics. Yes, Radical Islam spreads much more easily than Radical Christianity, but if you took some basic courses in economics and world politics you would see that this is a result of socio-economic realities affecting the region, and if Islam were swapped with any other religion in an area like this, the same exact results would ensue. As far as myself, I live here and this is my culture, and I would die to defend my country, if you don't like it then you can leave and go live with the Taliban. Frankly I think it's complete bullshit that you would say something like this, and I sincerely hope it was not intended as it came across.

allingeneral wrote:Also - to get back very specifically to the topic of this thread...

The "Moderate" label that the MSM throws around all the time is being placed on people who are not so moderate, as I stated in my previous post. The MSM is downplaying the extremism and allowing Islam to permeate our country in a way that won't be stopped quickly enough for us to help ourselves. The First Amendment protects these "Moderates" and gives them free reign to spout whatever vile, angry, antagonistic words that they want to use to sway the people of their congregations. It is my opinion that people of this nature should be labeled "Enemies of the State" and deported or brought up on federal charges.

When the US is 50% Islam in the next couple of generations and we begin seeing extremist elements within the United States - burning of churches and synagogues, localized application of Sharia law (which is already occurring in many compounds within the US), bombings of bars and night clubs - this is when the US will have truly lost the fight against Islam. Islam is building its army within our borders for a siege the likes of which none of us have ever seen.

God help us.

You yourself just admitted you were not talking about actual moderates, but rather extremists being referred to as such, you need to seriously figure out what you're saying before you start spouting fire and brimstone saying that sharia law is being practiced here already and that bars and night clubs will be bombed when they exist in countries like UAE, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, Qatar, Kuwait, and Syria just to name a few. Please cut the crap, you're spouting nothing more than uneducated ignorance.

caps85 wrote:

allingeneral wrote:Also - to get back very specifically to the topic of this thread...

The "Moderate" label that the MSM throws around all the time is being placed on people who are not so moderate, as I stated in my previous post. The MSM is downplaying the extremism and allowing Islam to permeate our country in a way that won't be stopped quickly enough for us to help ourselves. The First Amendment protects these "Moderates" and gives them free reign to spout whatever vile, angry, antagonistic words that they want to use to sway the people of their congregations. It is my opinion that people of this nature should be labeled "Enemies of the State" and deported or brought up on federal charges.

When the US is 50% Islam in the next couple of generations and we begin seeing extremist elements within the United States - burning of churches and synagogues, localized application of Sharia law (which is already occurring in many compounds within the US), bombings of bars and night clubs - this is when the US will have truly lost the fight against Islam. Islam is building its army within our borders for a siege the likes of which none of us have ever seen.

God help us.

You yourself just admitted you were not talking about actual moderates, but rather extremists being referred to as such, you need to seriously figure out what you're saying before you start spouting fire and brimstone saying that sharia law is being practiced here already and that bars and night clubs will be bombed when they exist in countries like UAE, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, Qatar, Kuwait, and Syria just to name a few. Please cut the crap, you're spouting nothing more than uneducated ignorance.

Alright - remove the bars and nightclubs part from my statement and the rest is spot-on.

The non-moderates who are labeled by the MSM as moderate are the problem - and that problem won't be resolved anytime soon for several reasons, a couple of them that immediately come to mind:

1) The MSM won't report it in a way that the rest of our population is alerted to the problem.
2) The left-wing ideology of acceptance and tolerance will not allow these people to be silenced.

Look - you don't get it, and that's fine. I haven't called you any names and I have attempted to keep things respectful. You want to start with the name-calling and personal attacks...what's the point of that?

allingeneral wrote:

caps85 wrote:

allingeneral wrote:Also - to get back very specifically to the topic of this thread...

The "Moderate" label that the MSM throws around all the time is being placed on people who are not so moderate, as I stated in my previous post. The MSM is downplaying the extremism and allowing Islam to permeate our country in a way that won't be stopped quickly enough for us to help ourselves. The First Amendment protects these "Moderates" and gives them free reign to spout whatever vile, angry, antagonistic words that they want to use to sway the people of their congregations. It is my opinion that people of this nature should be labeled "Enemies of the State" and deported or brought up on federal charges.

When the US is 50% Islam in the next couple of generations and we begin seeing extremist elements within the United States - burning of churches and synagogues, localized application of Sharia law (which is already occurring in many compounds within the US), bombings of bars and night clubs - this is when the US will have truly lost the fight against Islam. Islam is building its army within our borders for a siege the likes of which none of us have ever seen.

God help us.

You yourself just admitted you were not talking about actual moderates, but rather extremists being referred to as such, you need to seriously figure out what you're saying before you start spouting fire and brimstone saying that sharia law is being practiced here already and that bars and night clubs will be bombed when they exist in countries like UAE, Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey, Algeria, Qatar, Kuwait, and Syria just to name a few. Please cut the crap, you're spouting nothing more than uneducated ignorance.

Alright - remove the bars and nightclubs part from my statement and the rest is spot-on.

The non-moderates who are labeled by the MSM as moderate are the problem - and that problem won't be resolved anytime soon for several reasons, a couple of them that immediately come to mind:

1) The MSM won't report it in a way that the rest of our population is alerted to the problem.
2) The left-wing ideology of acceptance and tolerance will not allow these people to be silenced.

Look - you don't get it, and that's fine. I haven't called you any names and I have attempted to keep things respectful. You want to start with the name-calling and personal attacks...what's the point of that?

I'm afraid I don't understand what it is exactly that I don't get, you seem to be ignoring huge swathes of my previous statements, and changing your position when it comes to who exactly you are referring to when you talk about moderates and Muslims in this country. Also, you told me that I could go live with the Taliban after 7 years of service to my nation; I definitely take that as a personal attack, I asked for clarification regarding that which you failed to provide so I can only assume that it was intended as it came across.

caps85 wrote:

allingeneral wrote:

caps85 wrote:When you make posts stating I don't have the right to exist in this country or that I am a terrorist based upon my religion, then yes you are denigrating my military service to my country. Notice this thread is titled "How Islam will defeat the USA" not "How terrorists will defeat the USA" and then please explain how you have not been anything more than a bigot in this discussion.

No one is suggesting that you are a terrorist based on your religion. I think it's just been simply stated that the goal of Islam, in general, is to consume the world with the "There is no God but Allah" mantra. Islam doesn't co-exist well with other religions because of this view. The mechanism by which Islam is currently trying to overtake the world is terrorism. Pure and simple.

Also - you tossed out the word "Moderate"... It seems that this word is being used a lot in our MSM to try to make it seem as though the "Moderates" pose no danger to our way of life. However, a lot of these so-called "Moderates" are preaching daily with quite extreme views against our culture.

So, the point that I'm trying to make is - don't practice your religion in the US unless you plan to assimilate with the rest of our culture (which you seem to have accomplished) - take the good with the bad, and don't push extremist Islamic views onto a congregation in a mosque within US borders. Either get along with our culture, or leave and go live with the Taliban under Sharia law. Do Not try to bring Sharia law to the US, as it is a very clear violation of our way of life based on the separation of church and state.

If that view is bigoted, then get your label gun out right now and stick it to me.

If you don't mind sharing, who are these moderates to whom you refer? Have you ever visited a middle eastern country? Are you seriously implying that all, or most, or half of Muslims are attempting to bring Sharia law to the US? The vast majority of them do not even want it in their own country. Just as a moderate Christian American wouldn't try and bomb abortion clinics. Yes, Radical Islam spreads much more easily than Radical Christianity, but if you took some basic courses in economics and world politics you would see that this is a result of socio-economic realities affecting the region, and if Islam were swapped with any other religion in an area like this, the same exact results would ensue. As far as myself, I live here and this is my culture, and I would die to defend my country, if you don't like it then you can leave and go live with the Taliban. Frankly I think it's complete bullshit that you would say something like this, and I sincerely hope it was not intended as it came across.

I have been to the Persian Gulf - twice.

I'm not saying that the mainstream of Islam is practicing Sharia in the US - I'm simply stating that it is being applied here by extremists. We both (you and I) understand that extremism is the biggest problem. I wasn't specifically referring to *YOU* when I made the statement about going to live with the Taliban. Re-read it in context one more time. I excluded *YOU* when I mentioned assimilation into our culture "Which you seem to have accomplished"

Stop trying to take everything so personally, because I thought my posts were very clearly laid out so as not to suggest that *you* are an extremist, but that there are many who exist within our borders and are bending Islam into elements that will be used internally to create the downfall of our Judeo-Christian society (if we don;t manage to destroy it ourselves first)

allingeneral wrote: No one is suggesting that you are a terrorist based on your religion. I think it's just been simply stated that the goal of Islam, in general, is to consume the world with the "There is no God but Allah" mantra. Islam doesn't co-exist well with other religions because of this view. The mechanism by which Islam is currently trying to overtake the world is terrorism. Pure and simple.

Also - you tossed out the word "Moderate"... It seems that this word is being used a lot in our MSM to try to make it seem as though the "Moderates" pose no danger to our way of life. However, a lot of these so-called "Moderates" are preaching daily with quite extreme views against our culture.

So, the point that I'm trying to make is - don't practice your religion in the US unless you plan to assimilate with the rest of our culture (which you seem to have accomplished) - take the good with the bad, and don't push extremist Islamic views onto a congregation in a mosque within US borders. Either get along with our culture, or leave and go live with the Taliban under Sharia law. Do Not try to bring Sharia law to the US, as it is a very clear violation of our way of life based on the separation of church and state.

If that view is bigoted, then get your label gun out right now and stick it to me.

I have been to the Persian Gulf - twice.

I'm not saying that the mainstream of Islam is practicing Sharia in the US - I'm simply stating that it is being applied here by extremists. We both (you and I) understand that extremism is the biggest problem. I wasn't specifically referring to *YOU* when I made the statement about going to live with the Taliban. Re-read it in context one more time. I excluded *YOU* when I mentioned assimilation into our culture "Which you seem to have accomplished"

Stop trying to take everything so personally, because I thought my posts were very clearly laid out so as not to suggest that *you* are an extremist, but that there are many who exist within our borders and are bending Islam into elements that will be used internally to create the downfall of our Judeo-Christian society (if we don;t manage to destroy it ourselves first)

The problem that I have with your statements is that you go from making an incredibly bold statement that Islam is creating an army domestically to stage some sort of violent revolution and implement religious rule which is not even popular within the middle east itself. Furthermore you did not specify whether you were referring to extreme elements or the mainstream. As far as re-reading your posts, I did twice before I asked for clarification, if you read above you will see that when referring to sharia law and the taliban, you did use the word "you," hence my request for clarification, thanks. -Adam

P.S. just would like to toss out there that Allah is simply the arabic word for God. When Muslims say there is no god but God, they are in fact referring to the God of Abraham. It is very clearly written within the Quran, I have read it myself more than once.