Muslims Threatening More Violence in USA

[Coyote]

And the Republicans opposed it? Or, were they in on it to0?

How were they in on an executive order? This was your party, not mine. You can't escape responsibility for what your hero FDR did.

Just looking at current events - executive orders can cause quite a spew of reaction from the opposing party (Obama's immigration EO for example). Where is the Republican spew on the internment of the Japanese?

Republicans shamelessly kept silent.

Except for Ralph Lawrence Carr.

There was opposition to it - mostly from Christian ministers, liberal academics and students.

The Tolan Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives took testimony in four West Coast cities in late February and early March 1942--after Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 had been issued but before the nature of its implementation became dear--about how to handle the "problem" of Japanese Americans. When the committee arrived in Seattle on 28 February, faculty and students at the University of Washington mobilized to oppose mass removal from the West Coast. Sociology Department Chair Jesse F. Steiner stated that government acceptance of mass evacuation of U.S. citizens amounted to bowing to race prejudice and compared such removal to "the treatment of minorities by the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia." UW students Curtis Aller and Hildur Coon, to applause from fellow students in the hearing room, challenged the nativist rhetoric that Japanese Americans could never assimilate to American conditions. The 250 Nisei on campus were, above all, Americans, they testified, and very much involved in campus life. Further, evacuation would destroy the loyalty of the Japanese American community.(9)​

It's the same then as it is today. Politicians stand aside when an issue is being handled by the courts. It's a weenie maneuver, but they figure why take a stand when they can defer the whole issue to the Supreme Court? There were 3 separate challenges brought by Japanese victims of internment.

There was a huge amount of anti-Asian racism in the public driving it too. Just a really really horrible period in our history. I hope we never repeat it with other groups of Americans.

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

They.
Interesting concept.
Exactly who are they ?
To read your post, one would think that Islam is made up of some homogeneous mass of humanity, all of whom are of the same mind.
Your ignorance reeks so badly it's hard to truly get a bead on what you are attempting to say.

What is clear is that you've not the slightest idea what you are talking about .

'They' means the most moderate of Muslims. The rest are extremely anti-women, anti-homo.

Your spew eats itself.
"But they hate homos" vs. " 'They' means the most moderate of Muslims. The rest are extremely anti-women, anti-homo"
Rectify.

My posts are clear and stand on their own. Maybe you need a more effective Arabic-to-English translator.

No, they are not.
Explain how your use of 'they' makes the distinction between the most moderate of Muslims and your assertion that the rest are extremely anti women, anti homo.
While you are at it, explain how these conditions are ANY different that those found in Christianity.

Vocab words for you: Misogynist
Homophobic

Homophobic is a propaganda misnomer and you expose your own bias by using it.
If moderate muslims are anti-women and anti-homo then it follows that extremists would be more so.

You can slug it out with Webster's then (that's a dictionary as I realize the concept is likely foreign to you):
Homophobia Definition of homophobia by Merriam-Webster

Thanks for clarifying. Your belief is that ALL Muslims are misogynist homophobes.
Scroll up.
Reread the part where I mentioned the ignorance associated with painting all Muslims (or Christians for that matter) as anything.
What is it about this that confuses you ?

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

My heart is with those peaceful Muslims who are worshipping God at the Mosque. I wish them a fine, safe, and beautifully serene evening.

​

But they hate homos and consider women to be inferior. Including and especially you.

eh...so do many Christians.

We know that. The point is those who criticize Christians give Muslims a pass for even more extreme views. Hypocrisy plus.

I most certainly do not.
I give Islam LOTS of hell, especially for the gallows mentality that has come to dominate the belief.
But that does not now, and NEVER will give me the right to harm a Muslim, or interfere with his/her ability to pray as needed.
It doesn't give me the right to be a bully.
It doesn't give me the justification to be a bigot.

Govern yourself accordingly.

When mooooslims feel that way about us Christians and Jews we will relax. I don't intend to harm any mooooslims unless in self defense.

Because it is far easier to hate than to understand that all Muslims do not hate you.
You are a coward.

Dismissed.

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

How were they in on an executive order? This was your party, not mine. You can't escape responsibility for what your hero FDR did.

Just looking at current events - executive orders can cause quite a spew of reaction from the opposing party (Obama's immigration EO for example). Where is the Republican spew on the internment of the Japanese?

Republicans shamelessly kept silent.

Except for Ralph Lawrence Carr.

There was opposition to it - mostly from Christian ministers, liberal academics and students.

The Tolan Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives took testimony in four West Coast cities in late February and early March 1942--after Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 had been issued but before the nature of its implementation became dear--about how to handle the "problem" of Japanese Americans. When the committee arrived in Seattle on 28 February, faculty and students at the University of Washington mobilized to oppose mass removal from the West Coast. Sociology Department Chair Jesse F. Steiner stated that government acceptance of mass evacuation of U.S. citizens amounted to bowing to race prejudice and compared such removal to "the treatment of minorities by the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia." UW students Curtis Aller and Hildur Coon, to applause from fellow students in the hearing room, challenged the nativist rhetoric that Japanese Americans could never assimilate to American conditions. The 250 Nisei on campus were, above all, Americans, they testified, and very much involved in campus life. Further, evacuation would destroy the loyalty of the Japanese American community.(9)​

It's the same then as it is today. Politicians stand aside when an issue is being handled by the courts. It's a weenie maneuver, but they figure why take a stand when they can defer the whole issue to the Supreme Court? There were 3 separate challenges brought by Japanese victims of internment.

There was a huge amount of anti-Asian racism in the public driving it too. Just a really really horrible period in our history. I hope we never repeat it with other groups of Americans.

There are plenty that would have us do exactly that. Fear is a powerful thing. Mix it with importance and...........

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How were they in on an executive order? This was your party, not mine. You can't escape responsibility for what your hero FDR did.

Just looking at current events - executive orders can cause quite a spew of reaction from the opposing party (Obama's immigration EO for example). Where is the Republican spew on the internment of the Japanese?

Republicans shamelessly kept silent.

Except for Ralph Lawrence Carr.

There was opposition to it - mostly from Christian ministers, liberal academics and students.

The Tolan Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives took testimony in four West Coast cities in late February and early March 1942--after Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 had been issued but before the nature of its implementation became dear--about how to handle the "problem" of Japanese Americans. When the committee arrived in Seattle on 28 February, faculty and students at the University of Washington mobilized to oppose mass removal from the West Coast. Sociology Department Chair Jesse F. Steiner stated that government acceptance of mass evacuation of U.S. citizens amounted to bowing to race prejudice and compared such removal to "the treatment of minorities by the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia." UW students Curtis Aller and Hildur Coon, to applause from fellow students in the hearing room, challenged the nativist rhetoric that Japanese Americans could never assimilate to American conditions. The 250 Nisei on campus were, above all, Americans, they testified, and very much involved in campus life. Further, evacuation would destroy the loyalty of the Japanese American community.(9)​

It's the same then as it is today. Politicians stand aside when an issue is being handled by the courts. It's a weenie maneuver, but they figure why take a stand when they can defer the whole issue to the Supreme Court? There were 3 separate challenges brought by Japanese victims of internment.

(SNORK ! )
Three very public challenges to your classified program.
Do you even bother reading what you post ?

Actually I do. It's you who doesn't, skid mark.

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

Just looking at current events - executive orders can cause quite a spew of reaction from the opposing party (Obama's immigration EO for example). Where is the Republican spew on the internment of the Japanese?

Republicans shamelessly kept silent.

Except for Ralph Lawrence Carr.

There was opposition to it - mostly from Christian ministers, liberal academics and students.

The Tolan Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives took testimony in four West Coast cities in late February and early March 1942--after Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 had been issued but before the nature of its implementation became dear--about how to handle the "problem" of Japanese Americans. When the committee arrived in Seattle on 28 February, faculty and students at the University of Washington mobilized to oppose mass removal from the West Coast. Sociology Department Chair Jesse F. Steiner stated that government acceptance of mass evacuation of U.S. citizens amounted to bowing to race prejudice and compared such removal to "the treatment of minorities by the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia." UW students Curtis Aller and Hildur Coon, to applause from fellow students in the hearing room, challenged the nativist rhetoric that Japanese Americans could never assimilate to American conditions. The 250 Nisei on campus were, above all, Americans, they testified, and very much involved in campus life. Further, evacuation would destroy the loyalty of the Japanese American community.(9)​

It's the same then as it is today. Politicians stand aside when an issue is being handled by the courts. It's a weenie maneuver, but they figure why take a stand when they can defer the whole issue to the Supreme Court? There were 3 separate challenges brought by Japanese victims of internment.

(SNORK ! )
Three very public challenges to your classified program.
Do you even bother reading what you post ?

Actually I do. It's you who doesn't, skid mark.

Great, they rectify this whole classified thing with the very public tribulations of Ralph Lawrence Carr.
Good luck.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How were they in on an executive order? This was your party, not mine. You can't escape responsibility for what your hero FDR did.

Just looking at current events - executive orders can cause quite a spew of reaction from the opposing party (Obama's immigration EO for example). Where is the Republican spew on the internment of the Japanese?

Republicans shamelessly kept silent.

Except for Ralph Lawrence Carr.

There was opposition to it - mostly from Christian ministers, liberal academics and students.

The Tolan Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives took testimony in four West Coast cities in late February and early March 1942--after Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 had been issued but before the nature of its implementation became dear--about how to handle the "problem" of Japanese Americans. When the committee arrived in Seattle on 28 February, faculty and students at the University of Washington mobilized to oppose mass removal from the West Coast. Sociology Department Chair Jesse F. Steiner stated that government acceptance of mass evacuation of U.S. citizens amounted to bowing to race prejudice and compared such removal to "the treatment of minorities by the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia." UW students Curtis Aller and Hildur Coon, to applause from fellow students in the hearing room, challenged the nativist rhetoric that Japanese Americans could never assimilate to American conditions. The 250 Nisei on campus were, above all, Americans, they testified, and very much involved in campus life. Further, evacuation would destroy the loyalty of the Japanese American community.(9)​

It's the same then as it is today. Politicians stand aside when an issue is being handled by the courts. It's a weenie maneuver, but they figure why take a stand when they can defer the whole issue to the Supreme Court? There were 3 separate challenges brought by Japanese victims of internment.

There was a huge amount of anti-Asian racism in the public driving it too. Just a really really horrible period in our history. I hope we never repeat it with other groups of Americans.

We haven't learned a thing from it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Islam has destroyed the middle east and we better not allow it to destroy the new world. If we do = mars for us.

 

[Cyborgmudhen]

Islam has destroyed the middle east and we better not allow it to destroy the new world. If we do = mars for us.

Hmmmmmm......actually, lots of the mess we are seeing today is due to a couple of white guys who did not pray to Allah:
Here you go.
Learn:
Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916 Britannica.com

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Islam has destroyed the middle east and we better not allow it to destroy the new world. If we do = mars for us.

 

[hipeter924]

Easy for wannabe terrorist tough guys to make noises, a lot harder for them to put their rage into action.

They have had a pretty low success rate since 9/11, even with the lone wolf attacks.

So the chances of them actually pulling off an attack at an event, without them being taken out by the public and the police first, are very low.

They can't hijack planes now either, as they can't access the cockpit, and Americans have learned from flight 93.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Easy for wannabe terrorist tough guys to make noises, a lot harder for them to put their rage into action.

They have had a pretty low success rate since 9/11, even with the lone wolf attacks.

So the chances of them actually pulling off an attack at an event, without them being taken out by the public and the police first, are very low.

They can't hijack planes now either, as they can't access the cockpit, and Americans have learned from flight 93.

There's a maxim in soccer that no matter how good the goalie is, eventually balls will get through. I think you underestimate them.

 

[Pete7469]

Okay, I admit that I HATE radicals. All of them. I find it disturbing that we seem to have so many radical Muslims who immediately call for murder when someone says or does something they don't like. I believe that they see all infidels as offensive people who should be killed, but they are starting with those who piss them off the most.

I think they're starting with those who resist them the most. After they finish us off, the bed wetters will be really easy.

 

[JQPublic1]

They'll be a lot more organized now that Obama is importing Syrians. Radicals won't have to fly all that way for training anymore.

ARE YOU SYRIAS?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But they hate homos and consider women to be inferior. Including and especially you.

eh...so do many Christians.

We know that. The point is those who criticize Christians give Muslims a pass for even more extreme views. Hypocrisy plus.

I most certainly do not.
I give Islam LOTS of hell, especially for the gallows mentality that has come to dominate the belief.
But that does not now, and NEVER will give me the right to harm a Muslim, or interfere with his/her ability to pray as needed.
It doesn't give me the right to be a bully.
It doesn't give me the justification to be a bigot.

Govern yourself accordingly.

What does that have to do with anything? I never suggested denying anyone the right to worship. I was just pointing out the humble goddess's hypocrisy.

Where is the "hypocrisy" in wishing the Muslims who were praying at that mosque a fine, safe, and beautifully serene evening?

​

In the disparagement of Christian worshippers who have less draconian conservative precepts.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

'They' means the most moderate of Muslims. The rest are extremely anti-women, anti-homo.

Your spew eats itself.
"But they hate homos" vs. " 'They' means the most moderate of Muslims. The rest are extremely anti-women, anti-homo"
Rectify.

My posts are clear and stand on their own. Maybe you need a more effective Arabic-to-English translator.

No, they are not.
Explain how your use of 'they' makes the distinction between the most moderate of Muslims and your assertion that the rest are extremely anti women, anti homo.
While you are at it, explain how these conditions are ANY different that those found in Christianity.

Vocab words for you: Misogynist
Homophobic

Homophobic is a propaganda misnomer and you expose your own bias by using it.
If moderate muslims are anti-women and anti-homo then it follows that extremists would be more so.

You can slug it out with Webster's then (that's a dictionary as I realize the concept is likely foreign to you):
Homophobia Definition of homophobia by Merriam-Webster

Thanks for clarifying. Your belief is that ALL Muslims are misogynist homophobes.
Scroll up.
Reread the part where I mentioned the ignorance associated with painting all Muslims (or Christians for that matter) as anything.
What is it about this that confuses you ?

Innate repulsion elicited by homo behavior is not an irrational fear which is what phobia is. Your Webster definition is more of a reflection of the hijacking of culture than it is an objective definition.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But they hate homos and consider women to be inferior. Including and especially you.

eh...so do many Christians.

We know that. The point is those who criticize Christians give Muslims a pass for even more extreme views. Hypocrisy plus.

I most certainly do not.
I give Islam LOTS of hell, especially for the gallows mentality that has come to dominate the belief.
But that does not now, and NEVER will give me the right to harm a Muslim, or interfere with his/her ability to pray as needed.
It doesn't give me the right to be a bully.
It doesn't give me the justification to be a bigot.

Govern yourself accordingly.

When mooooslims feel that way about us Christians and Jews we will relax. I don't intend to harm any mooooslims unless in self defense.

Because it is far easier to hate than to understand that all Muslims do not hate you.
You are a coward.

Dismissed.

I didn't say all Muslims hate me. I pointed out that Muslim doctrine is dated and extremely intolerant in its most moderate form.

 

[September]

eh...so do many Christians.

We know that. The point is those who criticize Christians give Muslims a pass for even more extreme views. Hypocrisy plus.

I most certainly do not.
I give Islam LOTS of hell, especially for the gallows mentality that has come to dominate the belief.
But that does not now, and NEVER will give me the right to harm a Muslim, or interfere with his/her ability to pray as needed.
It doesn't give me the right to be a bully.
It doesn't give me the justification to be a bigot.

Govern yourself accordingly.

What does that have to do with anything? I never suggested denying anyone the right to worship. I was just pointing out the humble goddess's hypocrisy.

Where is the "hypocrisy" in wishing the Muslims who were praying at that mosque a fine, safe, and beautifully serene evening?

​

In the disparagement of Christian worshippers who have less draconian conservative precepts.

I have just as much respect for Christianity as I do for Islam, and Judaism. I feel no desire to take sides. Devout followers of all those religions worship the same God I do, albeit in different ways.

​

 

[AmericanFirst1]

But they hate homos and consider women to be inferior. Including and especially you.

eh...so do many Christians.

We know that. The point is those who criticize Christians give Muslims a pass for even more extreme views. Hypocrisy plus.

I most certainly do not.
I give Islam LOTS of hell, especially for the gallows mentality that has come to dominate the belief.
But that does not now, and NEVER will give me the right to harm a Muslim, or interfere with his/her ability to pray as needed.
It doesn't give me the right to be a bully.
It doesn't give me the justification to be a bigot.

Govern yourself accordingly.

When mooooslims feel that way about us Christians and Jews we will relax. I don't intend to harm any mooooslims unless in self defense.

Because it is far easier to hate than to understand that all Muslims do not hate you.
You are a coward.

Dismissed.

I know the truth of Islam, it is satans religion.

 

[The Irish Ram]

They'll be a lot more organized now that Obama is importing Syrians. Radicals won't have to fly all that way for training anymore.

ARE YOU SYRIAS?

Iran all the way here to tell you the truth......