America in bloodless invasion?

Greg Jennings

New member
Oh really?
How many muslims have you heard turn their noses up at the prospect of having sharia law become the standard everywhere?
Every single one I've ever known. Muslims in the US are well assimilated.
And of the very few that might say they do turn their noses up, how many of them are sincere and not just being civil to bide their time?
I suppose that I am taking their word that they would choose to kill an Islamic terrorist over joining such s group, but I've never seen any evidence indicating otherwise. The most "extreme" thing they've ever said to me was that Palestine is right to be PO'd at Israel, and I kind of agree.

Of of the very very very left that might be sincere, you gotta wonder how much longer their heads will be attached to their bodies?
Since some of ISIS's mass beheadings and burnings were condemned even by Al Qaeda for being too brutal, I think you're wrong here

Why would you trust anyone that puts their faith in some egotistical lunatic, drug addicted, child molesting, murdering, self appointed prophet of a false god that wants his people to wipe out or enslave anyone that does not worship that false god?
Are you referring to Mohammed? If so....
1. He was likely egotistical, yes
2. What drug?
3. He was no more a child molester than Joseph, who married and impregnated a likely sub-15-year-old Mary. It was a different time with different rules. I don't insult the legacy of my nation's founding fathers just because they owned slaves. Do you?
4. He murdered no less and for no better reason than the Israelites when they brutally conquered the Promised Land.
5. Everyone owned slaves back then. It was a tribal world.
6. False God? He's worshipped the same God you do! What do you think Allah translates into?
He had a high opinion of Jesus too (though not quite as much as you)
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
American soldiers ....... any soldiers, can go bonkers and do crazy things for many differing reasons. I could post up incidents of other US soldiers who have done similar things...



ok - show us an incident where another american soldier "went bonkers" and killed a whole buncha people in the name of Christianity or Judaism
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Absolutely, unless you think everyone convicted of a crime in the history of the judicial system has actually been guilty. That's before even 'capital crimes' are taken into consideration, never mind the likes of yourself that would murder homosexuals under the guise of 'justice'.

Hey, AB, we're talking about execution of murderers/terrorists here, not homos and fomos. If you want to talk about that, then I suggest you leave the thread, because we're talking about murder and terrorism.

Now that that's taken care of...

Tell me, Arthur, if a convicted murderer is put in prison for his crime, is there a remote possibility that he could someday murder again? (I will address your "false positive" claim in a moment, please bear with me in the meantime.)
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Every single one I've ever known. Muslims in the US are well assimilated.

I suppose that I am taking their word that they would choose to kill an Islamic terrorist over joining such s group, but I've never seen any evidence indicating otherwise. The most "extreme" thing they've ever said to me was that Palestine is right to be PO'd at Israel, and I kind of agree.

What reason did they give you for them saying that Palestine has a right to be mad at Israel?

Since some of ISIS's mass beheadings and burnings were condemned even by Al Qaeda for being too brutal, I think you're wrong here

Are you referring to Mohammed? If so....
1. He was likely egotistical, yes
2. What drug?
3. He was no more a child molester than Joseph, who married and impregnated a likely sub-15-year-old Mary. It was a different time with different rules. I don't insult the legacy of my nation's founding fathers just because they owned slaves. Do you?
4. He murdered no less and for no better reason than the Israelites when they brutally conquered the Promised Land.

I'd love to get into a discussion on this, but I'm a bit busy at the moment with other posts. Perhaps some other time?

5. Everyone owned slaves back then. It was a tribal world.
6. False God? He's worshipped the same God you do! What do you think Allah translates into?

Allah translates into "God." No disagreement there. But do you not recall that prior to Mohammed founding Islam, the region was mostly polytheistic? Mohammed (or however you spell his name) picked one (their moon god) and said "this is the one true god."

Yet the God of Adam, of Noah, of Enoch, and Elijah, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says in the Bible:

“For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples;but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. - Deuteronomy 7:6-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy7:6-8&version=NKJV

"the Lord your God has chosen you"

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. - John 15:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John15:16&version=NKJV

"You did not choose Me, but I chose you"

See the difference?

He had a high opinion of Jesus too (though not quite as much as you)

Most religions have a high respect of Jesus. Only Christians (and Jews) call him God.
 

eider

Well-known member
Personally? I would love them as my neighbor, and witness to them to turn away from their false god and towards the one true living God.
Hi........
Right....... this is my first and my last mega-post.... ever. They take too long....
>>You probably evangelise to other Christians as well. There are 3000+ differing Creeds, Churches and Denominations of Christianity....... but you've got it right, all others are wrong, so I'd suggest that you just stick to loving your neighbours........


And you seem to be prejudiced against Christians who defend good and hate evil.
Are you supporting Christians who hate Muslims? ...... but your actions differ from your words, which I find interesting.... see above


Both suicide and murder ...................... cannot be condemned on the teachings of the Quran.
Islam supports neither.


If a man is on a raft, floating down the river, and you're on the shore, do you warn him and try to get him out of the water because you know that there's a waterfall just a bit farther down stream?
You had the whole bible to find a perfect guide, so you made up your own scenario.

Well, for starters, Allah is a unitarian god, not a trinitarian one, so that's a major difference. ..........and .............
The Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. The Quran teaches that Allah is only one, not three in one. It's a fundamentally different deity
That's fine, it's what you believe, but Jews, millions of Christians, Bahais and millions of Muslims all disagree with you.
These folks read the bible as well as you, and found different beliefs. Your quote is from a letter written before anybody had decided what writings would be included in ..... the bible! Specialists are not even sure who wrote it, but despite all that you have taken words other than those of Jesus and they have become your passport to cherry-picking the whole bible for what suits you. You certainly won't be obeying all the laws of Moses, I'm guessing.

Everything I need is in the entire Bible, not just the New Testament.
We all know that's not true, because you need to make up your own scenarios to prove your points. Actions speak louder than words.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
You missed the important verse......... {3:15} And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
....... you never needed to take note of the whole bible........ presumably you only needed the New Covenant, as shown, but you avoided it. Cherry picking again?


I'm not entirely sure where people like you and God's Truth get this idea in their heads that Jesus made a new covenant. It's just not Biblical.
2 Timothy {3:15} And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
...............that''s a New Covenant

There are only two covenants given from God to man in the Bible, and both were given in Genesis, by God, to Abram/Abraham.
The first one given was the Covenant of Grace, which is of faith only, when Abraham was still Abram. See Genesis 15.
The second covenant given was the Covenant of Law, which is of faith and works, and was when God put a part of himself into Abram's name, and changed his name to Abraham. See Genesis 17........... and ...............
There is no "New Covenant," there are only the two covenants given to Abram/Abraham in Genesis....... and .............Was Israel, in the OT, under the law? or were they under grace? See Genesis 17.....
Are Christians under law or under grace?.......... and ............
Did Jesus, during his ministry on the earth, teach law or grace? What do the four gospels teach overall?
Some say 'Law', some say 'Grace', others say 'Law with Grace', yet others say 'Free Salvation leading to Grace' There are so many variations..........
Which are you?

Like:- ROMANS 12:20 MATTHEW 5:40 MATTHEW 5:44 LUKE 6:29 LUKE 6:27 LUKE 6:35 Eider, are you a pacifist? Because those are the verses pacifists typically use to support their argument.
Like you wrote....
Personally? I would love them as my neighbor ...............................
That's good.......


I certainly don't "hide my Bible" when discussing things like this.
You pick what suits you.........?

Christians as individuals do not have the right to take for themselves the responsibilities of the Government. (This is not saying that Christians cannot be in the government, only that as an individual they cannot act as the government does.)
And Christians are commanded by the Divine Words of God as written by His Ordained Apostle Paul to obey the CIvil Governments of countries which they live in. So you'd best take time to study your laws and keep to them. Can I show you? Do you need me to teach you?

In the Bible, Jesus is shown to be the Son of God, God in the flesh, and the Messiah. It says that Jesus ascended into heaven after being put to death, buried, and raised from the dead on the third day.
However, in the Quran, He's just a "good man," and a prophet. It does say Jesus was taken into heaven, but it denies the claim that he was crucified, buried, and resurrected.
Wow, you mean that many millions of Muslims in the World admit to and support the existance of Yeshua BarYosef, known since the 16th century as Jesus? In a world where the mythers are increasing in numbers by the day that makes Muslims friends in many debates!!! :idunno:


So did Jesus ever quote from the Old Testament?
Yes! When he supported or repealed various parts of the Old Covenant. He repealed 96 laws in about two sentences. Do you know those or would you like me to teach you?

Are you, per chance, Catholic?
Are you per chance a Salvation Freely Given by Grace Free Dispensation Christian?

No, that's what you say. You say, "Don't use the Old Testament because it's not for us, and I don't like it."
Ha ha! I love the OT laws....... there was not one single law that did not help either security, safety, cohesion, strength, wellness or health of the Israelites! Many outdated now....... by Jesus!
But if you're a Free Gift of Salvation Christian it looks as if you can pick up or put down whatever you fancy, whenever you wish. I don't like it.

Most Muslims wish to lead their lives in peace, in freedom, liberty and happiness.
Oh? So you're saying that Islam is a religion of peace?
I'm saying that most Muslims wish to lead their lives in freedom, liberty and peace, just as you do.

They pick and choose what they want to follow out of their holy book, just like you do.
Ah ha....... since you don't agree with many (most?) Christians I can smile at the above.

Why, when the planes hit the twin towers did the women and children dance in the streets, the women throwing out candy for the children, celebrating the blow against the US?
There you go.......... blaming all Islam for the terrorism of a few deranged madmen.
Did you watch them? I bet you never watched Muslims dancing in your street! But instead of using that to whip up hatred amongst the masses you should remember what Jesus would have said. Do you want me to teach you what Jesus would have said. If you need to ask will reply.......


I would rather they repent of their pursuit of a false god and turn to their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Son of the living God.
They say that their God is your God. But don't worry about that........ you disagree with millions of Christians as well, so you would need to start at home really! :D

We shouldn't even have prisons, let alone prison mosques.
The bible commands that you will obey the law in your country. If you don't like it you've got a vote.

You should do that, and while you're at it, check to see what their religious beliefs were when they committed the crimes. I can almost guarantee you that it's not Christianity or Judaism.
Go on....... off you go to google; and type in 'modern christian crusaders' and then read the various links.

You apparently don't know even the four gospels very well, let alone the New Testament, or you would have instantly recognized the passage quoted. Luke 22:36-38 is right before Jesus went to the garden before his crucifixion.
They never bought any swords! The verses explain that they already had two! Now when d'you think they got those? !

'Incitement to commit' crimes .........
What in the world are you talking about? See what happens when you don't know what you're talking about?
Look..... let's keep this simple, ok? Where I live, if anybody intentionally attempts to incite others to commit any crimes, that's an offence(s). It's such an old law. We call such laws 'Common Law'. Many US States would no doubt have legislation like this.
I know what I'm talking about. Free speech doesn't cover incitement to commit crimes.........
 

Greg Jennings

New member
What reason did they give you for them saying that Palestine has a right to be mad at Israel?
Simple history. Britain carved out a piece of Palestine, which had been Muslim land for many hundreds of years, and decided to make a Jewush state there. That was poor planning.

I'd love to get into a discussion on this, but I'm a bit busy at the moment with other posts. Perhaps some other time?
Ok

Allah translates into "God." No disagreement there. But do you not recall that prior to Mohammed founding Islam, the region was mostly polytheistic?
True
Mohammed (or however you spell his name) picked one (their moon god) and said "this is the one true god."
Not exactly. He worships "the God of Abraham."

Muslims have a similar line of attack on the Christian God. They claim that because He is referred to as "El" in the OT, that He is actually the Canaanite deity El (a well known polytheistic god of the time). In reality, El is a shorter version of Elohim.

I've researched this very topic at length in the past. There is overwhelming evidence that Allah and God refer to the same deity, and that the main difference between Christianity and Islam is disagreement over Jesus' death and resurrection (but not his deeds)

Most religions have a high respect of Jesus. Only Christians (and Jews) call him God.
What Jews do you know that have reverence for Jesus? To them, he was a false prophet
 

ClimateSanity

New member
What? This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with misrepresenting information in order to further one's own ends, instead of presenting things as they actually are.

You don't see the problem with doing that?
Speech you don't agree with is still speech. You want to ban it because that's what fascists do.
 

eider

Well-known member
Tell me, Arthur, if a convicted murderer is put in prison for his crime, is there a remote possibility that he could someday murder again? (I will address your "false positive" claim in a moment, please bear with me in the meantime.)


Is there a remote possibility that some convicted murderers are innocent?
Check out how many innocents have been executed.

But captured convicted terrorists are too valuable to execute. The info that they possess is just too valuable to lose. Obviously killing a terrorist in an attempted attack is totally different.
 

Greg Jennings

New member
Speech you don't agree with is still speech. You want to ban it because that's what fascists do.

Go find one quote I've ever made here supporting censorship or banning of any type of speech, including hate speech. Go do it now.



You're a clown who can't keep up with a conversation, it would seem.

PS: I would like you to tell me what you think fascism is in your own words.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
Go find one quote I've ever made here supporting censorship or banning of any type of speech, including hate speech. Go do it now.



You're a clown who can't keep up with a conversation, it would seem.

PS: I would like you to tell me what you think fascism is in your own words.
Eider originally said this: This ain't good. None of it is good. If these phobic comments were made in public places they could even be construed as crimes...... 'Incitement to commit' crimes..

I replied to eider that we still have free speech and that his kind were still not in power.....fascists.

You objected to that comment had said it had nothing to do with free speech and agreed with eiders assessment of the speech.

He thought it was an incitement to violence. Apparently , you do as well.

Your kind want to limit speech that you see as an incitement to violence.

That's a subjective perspective and doing something about it necessarily limits speech .




"What? This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with misrepresenting information in order to further one's own ends, instead of presenting things as they actually are.

You don't see the problem with doing that?"....you.


I have a problem with lots of speech but you cannot do anything about it unless you want to restrict it. It appears that you would agree with such tactics. Right? No?
 

Greg Jennings

New member
Eider originally said this: This ain't good. None of it is good. If these phobic comments were made in public places they could even be construed as crimes...... 'Incitement to commit' crimes..

I replied to eider that we still have free speech and that his kind were still not in power.....fascists.

You objected to that comment had said it had nothing to do with free speech and agreed with eiders assessment of the speech.

He thought it was an incitement to violence. Apparently , you do as well.

Your kind want to limit speech that you see as an incitement to violence.

That's a subjective perspective and doing something about it necessarily limits speech .




"What? This has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with misrepresenting information in order to further one's own ends, instead of presenting things as they actually are.

You don't see the problem with doing that?"....you.


I have a problem with lots of speech but you cannot do anything about it unless you want to restrict it. It appears that you would agree with such tactics. Right? No?

I think you quoted me when you meant to quote someone else, then I replied to you, and that has spawned our confusion here.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Hey, AB, we're talking about execution of murderers/terrorists here, not homos and fomos. If you want to talk about that, then I suggest you leave the thread, because we're talking about murder and terrorism.

Now that that's taken care of...

It was a salient point in relation to extremism. You support capital punishment for homosexuals. That makes you no better than the fanatics who throw gay people off buildings. You're all extremist nutters no matter what 'religion' the banner is under.

Tell me, Arthur, if a convicted murderer is put in prison for his crime, is there a remote possibility that he could someday murder again? (I will address your "false positive" claim in a moment, please bear with me in the meantime.)

If they're guilty then there may be a slim possibility of it happening although if life imprisonment actually meant that for those who could pose a danger to society if released and stringent security methods were employed then on paper that could be avoided. Unfortunately any system isn't going to be perfect but it can certainly be improved.

In turn, can you give a wrongfully convicted murderer their life back after you've executed them?
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It was a salient point in relation to extremism. You support capital punishment for homosexuals. That makes you no better than the fanatics who throw gay people off buildings. You're all extremist nutters no matter what 'religion' the banner is under.

Capital punishment is through the government. It is the justified killing of a convicted criminal.

Throwing someone off a building to kill them is murder, and is not justified, no matter how you cut it, and the person(s) involved should be punished. All men are equal before the law.

If they're guilty then there may be a slim possibility of it happening

So there is a possibility that he could escape or be released. And once released, what's to say he won't commit the crime again?

although if life imprisonment actually meant that for those who could pose a danger to society if released and stringent security methods were employed then on paper that could be avoided. Unfortunately any system isn't going to be perfect but it can certainly be improved.

I'm glad you admit that no system is perfect.

The problem then is that people are very resourceful, and will do anything and everything they can to get out of punishment. And since you yourself admit that no system (and to clarify, that includes prison systems and executions) is perfect, then the best we can do is to minimize the risk of more crime occurring. Wouldn't you agree?

So tell me, Art, which has more risk of a murderer committing a crime after being punished?
A) prison
OR
B) execution

In turn, can you give a wrongfully convicted murderer their life back after you've executed them?

You're playing the "it's better to let a murderer go free than to kill an innocent person" card, right?

No, it's not better that one murderer go free to avoid killing an innocent person. That's how we got our current system, which has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

No, the best way to avoid killing an innocent person is to have very little crime occur in the first place, so that all the resources of law enforcement can be brought to bear on each case, and that means that more evidence can be found, and each piece of evidence can be examined to determine if a suspect is innocent or guilty.

As for getting to a low crime rate, the biggest issue is how swiftly are the punishments served and carried out. With our current system, it can sometimes take years to get a conviction, and it isn't always guaranteed.

If our system is "the best in the world", then why do we have the highest crime rate? Shouldn't we have the lowest crime rate in the world if we have the best system? The correlation should be the better the system, the lower the amount of crime committed. Do you agree or disagree?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Capital punishment is through the government. It is the justified killing of a convicted criminal.

Throwing someone off a building to kill them is murder, and is not justified, no matter how you cut it, and the person(s) involved should be punished. All men are equal before the law.

Why? You support the execution of homosexuals, correct? If so, you're a fanatic, no different to the nutters who do the above. Most Christians don't support such extremism so don't shy away from it. You're an extremist, no matter how much you "think" it's justified under your belief.

So there is a possibility that he could escape or be released. And once released, what's to say he won't commit the crime again?

Already addressed.

I'm glad you admit that no system is perfect.

The problem then is that people are very resourceful, and will do anything and everything they can to get out of punishment. And since you yourself admit that no system (and to clarify, that includes prison systems and executions) is perfect, then the best we can do is to minimize the risk of more crime occurring. Wouldn't you agree?

So tell me, Art, which has more risk of a murderer committing a crime after being punished?
A) prison
OR
B) execution

Which has the less likelihood of an innocent person being put to death? As watertight a system as it's possible to attain where only those with 100% proof of guilt are put to death or your version where a guilty conviction leads to a quick execution. This cuts both ways.

You're playing the "it's better to let a murderer go free than to kill an innocent person" card, right?

Uh, no, not at all. Start doing the math man.

No, it's not better that one murderer go free to avoid killing an innocent person. That's how we got our current system, which has one of the highest crime rates in the world.

No, it isn't and that's not what I'm advocating anyway.

No, the best way to avoid killing an innocent person is to have very little crime occur in the first place, so that all the resources of law enforcement can be brought to bear on each case, and that means that more evidence can be found, and each piece of evidence can be examined to determine if a suspect is innocent or guilty.

As for getting to a low crime rate, the biggest issue is how swiftly are the punishments served and carried out. With our current system, it can sometimes take years to get a conviction, and it isn't always guaranteed.

If our system is "the best in the world", then why do we have the highest crime rate? Shouldn't we have the lowest crime rate in the world if we have the best system? The correlation should be the better the system, the lower the amount of crime committed. Do you agree or disagree?

If that's the case then the DP and 'death row' haven't done much have they? Instead of worshiping Bob Enyart you should learn to think for yourself dude,
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
What constitutes invasion in your mind? If a religion whose adherents hold no allegiance to a state , but to a law deliberately immigrate to a country with the intention of ultimately forcing that law upon the former constituents, is that an invasion?

Islamic immigration has increased in recent years in the west and their birthrates outpace the native population greatly. They have no intention of assimilating with the greater culture and have no respect for our laws or history or institutions.

Once their numbers reach a density, they can conceivably enact laws unique to their religion. Montana has already outlawed a petition asking that Sharia never be implemented in the state.

If in a few decades, if Muslim numbers are a plurality and Sharia law has made its way into our law books , can we legitimately say we have been invaded and conquered?

attachment.php
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
America in bloodless invasion?


President "Chicken Little" in the White House must be beside himself that the "sky hasn't fallen in," which he predicted if his Muslim ban wasn't put into effect!
 
Top