No, Muslims Should NOT Be Allowed To Serve In Public Office

[protectionist]

]
It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

This is how Hamas claims morality by attacking Israel, and killing innocents. They simply define Israel as not innocent.

 

[Lastamender]

I agree that Islams attempt at maintaining fidelity to old ways has hampered possible improvements.

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.
The US wrongly attacks innocents often.
Name one time a Muslim country attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years?

See Post # 868 for when a Muslim country, THE UMMAH, attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years.

Wrong!

The WTC was attacked by about 20 private citizens, guided by Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion. No one sponsored or approved of the attack.

Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion.

Then why did Bin Laden consult with leading clerics to find out how many he could kill? I believe they told him 4 million would be fine, and that was just children.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation
They did not even know who was responsible for the WTC attack for sure, until after the invasion of Iraq, when they found a video tape of Osama bin Laden admitting it.
But there is no evidence of any Muslim cleric being involved.
Even Osama could have killed far more.
He could have targeted stadiums or other larger gatherings.
But it was clear he was attacking symbols, not people.

No it is not. But you can go ahead and prove it is, if you can.

 

[bodecea]

]
It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

This is how Hamas claims morality by attacking Israel, and killing innocents. They simply define Israel as not innocent.

You mean like fat donnie just declares Iran as not innocent?

 

[protectionist]

That is just a lie.
They did not even know who was responsible for the WTC attack for sure, until after the invasion of Iraq, when they found a video tape of Osama bin Laden admitting it.
But there is no evidence of any Muslim cleric being involved.
Even Osama could have killed far more.
He could have targeted stadiums or other larger gatherings.
But it was clear he was attacking symbols, not people.

He was really a good-hearted, nice guy, deep down.

Is there a doctor in the house ? I mean really.

 

[protectionist]

You mean like fat donnie just declares Iran as not innocent?

Why don't you post honestly, instead of polluting the thread with disingenuous foolishness ? Is there anyone who doesn't know Iran's terrorism record ?

Keep this up and you could replace Rigby as idiot of the thread.

 

[Rigby5]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as ex-general were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 8:12 - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

 

[protectionist]

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Everything you are saying is a lie. But I've already stated that a few times. How could anything you say NOT be a lie ?

You're a jihadist, and you're mission here in this thread is to lie, and hope that some of these airheads who know nothing about Islam and jihad may believe you. Ho hum. yawn******

 

[Thinker101]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as ex-general were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Dood, that is some twilight zone stuff.
Drew McCoy on Twitter

 

[Rigby5]

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Everything you are saying is a lie. But I've already stated that a few times. How could anything you say NOT be a lie ?

You're a jihadist, and you're mission here in this thread is to lie, and hope that some of these airheads who know nothing about Islam and jihad may believe you. Ho hum. yawn******

That is an obvious lie.
Muslims have been incredibly pacifist.
They have been invaded, beaten, killed, the homes taken, but the British, French, Zionists, and US.
Rarely do they even try to fight back.
They are not attacking anyone.
They are trying to just get us to stop attacking them.

 

[Rigby5]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as ex-general were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Dood, that is some twilight zone stuff.
Drew McCoy on Twitter

We invaded Iraq and deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe, killing about half a million innocent civilians. If we had done that to some Christian country, wouldn't all those involved by in jail by now?
Bush should have been impeached for lying to us all.
He knew there were no WMD, because Plame, Ambassador Wilson, General Fullford Jr., and lots of people in the CIA were telling him that.

 

[Lastamender]

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 8:12 - “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

 

[Thinker101]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as ex-general were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Dood, that is some twilight zone stuff.
Drew McCoy on Twitter

We invaded Iraq and deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe, killing about half a million innocent civilians. If we had done that to some Christian country, wouldn't all those involved by in jail by now?
Bush should have been impeached for lying to us all.
He knew there were no WMD, because Plame, Ambassador Wilson, General Fullford Jr., and lots of people in the CIA were telling him that.

Then all those in congress that voted for the war would also need to be removed from office. Although I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with Obama's speech.

 

[Lastamender]

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.

Oh yeah Western Europe is shit because they have not. Soon it will be third world countries where violence by the right religion is to be expected and ignored. Islam is a cancer.

 

[Lastamender]

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture,

The verse of the Sword comes to mind.That is it in a nutshell. Islam must dominate and it matters not how they go about it. Again there are no positives for the non-Muslim. They are not considered part of humanity. Your texts say so. You need to do some reading.

 

[Rigby5]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as ex-general were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

Everything you are saying is a lie.
Obama did NOT pull the US troops out of Iraq.
I wanted him to,and was angry he did not.
We should not have had any troops there, and it was illegal to have troops there.

The reason the US troops were pulled out is because Iraq insisted.
They planned to end the immunity agreement that protected US troops.
If they had stayed, then they would have been under Iraqi law and jurisdiction.
So Obama has no choice in the matter at all.

If course the US gave ISIS weapons, but that was mostly Bush.
The whole point of ISIS was to make a fake religious group in order to justify more war, since the old WMD claim was proven false.

The US did not fund Egypt, but the Egyptian military, in order to bribe them to take out Morsi, the legally elected president.

By law, Israel should not go back to the 1967 borders, but the 1948 borders, or not exist at all.
There is NOTHING indefensible about the 1967 borders except Jerusalem, which Israel should not have at all.

Israel is the historic inventor of terrorism, such as the bombing of the King Davis Hotel, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN moderator, the Sergeants Affair where they kidnapped and mutilated British NCOs, massacring Arab villages like Dier Yassin, assassinating the Canadian, Gerald Bull, etc.

Dood, that is some twilight zone stuff.
Drew McCoy on Twitter

We invaded Iraq and deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe, killing about half a million innocent civilians. If we had done that to some Christian country, wouldn't all those involved by in jail by now?
Bush should have been impeached for lying to us all.
He knew there were no WMD, because Plame, Ambassador Wilson, General Fullford Jr., and lots of people in the CIA were telling him that.

Then all those in congress that voted for the war would also need to be removed from office. Although I'm not quite sure what any of that has to do with Obama's speech.

That is true.
All of Congress, (except a few like Bernie Sanders), were guilty of war crimes.
But those who created and told the lies are more culpable than those who just went along with them.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.

Oh yeah Western Europe is shit because they have not. Soon it will be third world countries where violence by the right religion is to be expected and ignored. Islam is a cancer.

That is silly because Muslims do not want to leave the land of their parents.
They are only going to Europe because of US wars in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc.
Whether or not Islam is good or bad is irrelevant.
What matters that they can't stay at home because of the wars we started, so we should stop that, so the Muslims can leave and go back home.
They do not want to be here.
So all we have to do is stop making illegal wars.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture,

The verse of the Sword comes to mind.That is it in a nutshell. Islam must dominate and it matters not how they go about it. Again there are no positives for the non-Muslim. They are not considered part of humanity. Your texts say so. You need to do some reading.

Of course Muslims want to dominate in Muslim countries, but that is normal self defense.
Would you want someone to emigrate and take over the US?
Of course not.
You want to dominate the US, just as Muslims want to dominate Muslim countries,

 

[Lastamender]

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

You are coming off as totally insane,
Here is the definition of hijra.

{...
Hij•ra

or Hij•rah
(ˈhɪdʒ rə)
also Hegira

n. (sometimes l.c.)
1. the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution A.D. 622: regarded as the beginning of theMuslim Era.
2. the Muslim Era itself.
,,,}

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation, and clearly Muslims did not harm Christians or Jews living in the Mideast or on pilgrimages.
You have shown no abuses by Muslims at all.

Hijra has nothing at all to do with assimilation,

Yes it does tell the whole truth. His followers were told to migrate to Mecca and practice his religion. They were told not to assimilate.

That is the opposite of what you were claiming.
Muslims not assimilating is perfectly fine.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining your personal culture.
What you were claiming is that non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture, and that is false.

non-Muslims were forced to assimilate into Muslim culture,

The verse of the Sword comes to mind.That is it in a nutshell. Islam must dominate and it matters not how they go about it. Again there are no positives for the non-Muslim. They are not considered part of humanity. Your texts say so. You need to do some reading.

Of course Muslims want to dominate in Muslim countries, but that is normal self defense.
Would you want someone to emigrate and take over the US?
Of course not.
You want to dominate the US, just as Muslims want to dominate Muslim countries,

I am talking about what Islam says. I could care less what Muslims say. But it comes in handy when they lie.