Trump didn't start it.

[NYcarbineer]

There are more dangerous Trump supporters in America than there are dangerous Muslims.

------------------------------------------- your post just above is pretty senseless Caribineer !!

The far right has more dangerous people in the US than there are dangerous Muslims.

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Post the link to him telling his audience that they should knock the crap out of tomato throwers on JANUARY 26th.

Thanks.

Sorry, I was wrong and you were right he did not say it till Feb. 1st.
There was 2 campaigns on Jan. 26th with him- one in Iowa City and another in Marshal town.
Yes it was a week later when he addressed it.
Still he did not incite anything, the protestors are the ones who are trying to shut down rallies and throwing tomatoes because he says something a Bernie Sanders supporter doesn't like.

No problem. You are not to blame. There is too much bullshit out there and finding facts can be tough.

Still...he made up the whole tomato story regarding the event on Feb. 1.

Do you see why that is a red flag? Yes....someone tried to throw tomatoes somewhere a week earlier. I get it. Not cool.

But....on the day he told his supporters to knock the crap out of any tomato throwers....he WAS NOT TOLD BY SECURITY THAT ANYONE HAD TOMATOES.

That means that he simply lied in order to get a rise out of the people in the audience. That's NOT SOMETHING THAT A LEADER DOES.

Period.

 

[peach174]

It is not about how many is killed by others, it is about their Holy Book that promotes their hateful kidnappings,killings and ransoms.

So as we calculate who was more warlike,

we can't count all the European invasions of Muslim countries, the occupations, the exploitations, the colonizations,

all done at the point of a bayonet when necessary.

All we get to count out of that is what? That the Muslim people who were being attacked were somehow acting out a violent religion by defending themselves?

lol, good one.

They, the Muslims, started the wars, they invaded Europe and Spain they killed and threw out peaceful Christians from the Holy Lands. I realize History is seldom taught in school now a days but perhaps you should learn a little.

Playing your game, the Romans started the wars. They conquered Jerusalem in 66 BC.

That would be the Babylonians in 423 BCE (which eventually became Muslim's.)
This is History not a game.

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

 

[pismoe]

lots of dangerous importeds in the USA from Somalis to mexicans in and everything in between . Its quite a diverse 5th column Carbineer !! And overseas its even worse . See 'belgium' Carbineer !!

 

[peach174]

Post the link to him telling his audience that they should knock the crap out of tomato throwers on JANUARY 26th.

Thanks.

Sorry, I was wrong and you were right he did not say it till Feb. 1st.
There was 2 campaigns on Jan. 26th with him- one in Iowa City and another in Marshal town.
Yes it was a week later when he addressed it.
Still he did not incite anything, the protestors are the ones who are trying to shut down rallies and throwing tomatoes because he says something a Bernie Sanders supporter doesn't like.

No problem. You are not to blame. There is too much bullshit out there and finding facts can be tough.

Still...he made up the whole tomato story regarding the event on Feb. 1.

Do you see why that is a red flag? Yes....someone tried to throw tomatoes somewhere a week earlier. I get it. Not cool.

But....on the day he told his supporters to knock the crap out of any tomato throwers....he WAS NOT TOLD BY SECURITY THAT ANYONE HAD TOMATOES.

That means that he simply lied in order to get a rise out of the people in the audience. That's NOT SOMETHING THAT A LEADER DOES.

Period.

He was addressing them about the tomatoes from that rally a week ago and was talking about any which might get thrown at any future rallies from what I got out of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So as we calculate who was more warlike,

we can't count all the European invasions of Muslim countries, the occupations, the exploitations, the colonizations,

all done at the point of a bayonet when necessary.

All we get to count out of that is what? That the Muslim people who were being attacked were somehow acting out a violent religion by defending themselves?

lol, good one.

They, the Muslims, started the wars, they invaded Europe and Spain they killed and threw out peaceful Christians from the Holy Lands. I realize History is seldom taught in school now a days but perhaps you should learn a little.

Playing your game, the Romans started the wars. They conquered Jerusalem in 66 BC.

That would be the Babylonians in 423 BCE (which eventually became Muslim's.)
This is History not a game.

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

 

[rcfieldz]

This is becoming quite the show. Better than pro wrestling.

 

[peach174]

They, the Muslims, started the wars, they invaded Europe and Spain they killed and threw out peaceful Christians from the Holy Lands. I realize History is seldom taught in school now a days but perhaps you should learn a little.

Playing your game, the Romans started the wars. They conquered Jerusalem in 66 BC.

That would be the Babylonians in 423 BCE (which eventually became Muslim's.)
This is History not a game.

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

 

[NYcarbineer]

Playing your game, the Romans started the wars. They conquered Jerusalem in 66 BC.

That would be the Babylonians in 423 BCE (which eventually became Muslim's.)
This is History not a game.

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

 

[peach174]

That would be the Babylonians in 423 BCE (which eventually became Muslim's.)
This is History not a game.

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when the Spanish invaded the western Hemisphere and tried to enslave the native people,

which religion was to blame?

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

 

[peach174]

The invasion was Spanish conquers looking for new land and was not invaded because of their pagan religion.
They tried and succeeded to turn them from paganism to Christianity.
It is not even close to compare the two.

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

No it doesn't.
They did not enslave them because of Christianity.
They enslaved them because of the view at the time was that they were heathen savages.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

No it doesn't.
They did not enslave them because of Christianity.
They enslaved them because of the view at the time was that they were heathen savages.

lol, your first sentence disproves your second sentence.

 

[PredFan]

------------------------------------------- your post just above is pretty senseless Caribineer !!

The far right has more dangerous people in the US than there are dangerous Muslims.

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

They are not dangerous simply because you say they are you stupid fuck. Go play in the street and quit derailing this thread.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So enslaving the native people in the name of Christianity is ok.

Good one.

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

No it doesn't.
They did not enslave them because of Christianity.
They enslaved them because of the view at the time was that they were heathen savages.

And......................the reason that the white Europeans decided that America was a land to be conquered was because they saw the various Native Americans as being 'savages' and thought they were savages as well.

They also sought to bring Christianity to them and destroy their native beliefs.

If not, they sought to eradicate them. Ever hear of the small pox blankets?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No they enslaved the native people under the Spanish crown.
As they saw it, it was their duty to turn the natives away from Satan worship (paganism).

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

No it doesn't.
They did not enslave them because of Christianity.
They enslaved them because of the view at the time was that they were heathen savages.

And......................the reason that the white Europeans decided that America was a land to be conquered was because they saw the various Native Americans as being 'savages' and thought they were savages as well.

They also sought to bring Christianity to them and destroy their native beliefs.

If not, they sought to eradicate them. Ever hear of the small pox blankets?

The far right has more dangerous people in the US than there are dangerous Muslims.

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

They are not dangerous simply because you say they are you stupid fuck. Go play in the street and quit derailing this thread.

The guy who shot the black folks in church wasn't dangerous?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The far right has more dangerous people in the US than there are dangerous Muslims.

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

They are not dangerous simply because you say they are you stupid fuck. Go play in the street and quit derailing this thread.

So the armed gangs supporting Bundy weren't dangerous, but the unarmed protesters at Trump's rallies are terrorists.

Does that sum it up accurately?

 

[Seawytch]

If people have been warning about Islam for so many centuries, then why did Thomas Jefferson (one of the Founding Fathers), spend so much time studying it, and translating a Koran into English?

Because he wanted the American people to read it and know just how hateful their holy book promotes.
Unlike the media of today who lies to us about how peaceful they are.

Wow...you've taken the Republican habit of revisionist history to a whole new level...You just made that story up in your head.

 

[PredFan]

Spain was a Christian theocracy at the time. What the so-called crown did was done in the name of the Christian God.

So was all of Europe.
The French viewed them as trading partners.
The English wanted their land and saw them as simply in the way.
The Spanish wanted them for labor that could be exploited and saw them as having souls that needed saving from eternal damnation.

Which proves my point, not yours.

No it doesn't.
They did not enslave them because of Christianity.
They enslaved them because of the view at the time was that they were heathen savages.

And......................the reason that the white Europeans decided that America was a land to be conquered was because they saw the various Native Americans as being 'savages' and thought they were savages as well.

They also sought to bring Christianity to them and destroy their native beliefs.

If not, they sought to eradicate them. Ever hear of the small pox blankets?

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

They are not dangerous simply because you say they are you stupid fuck. Go play in the street and quit derailing this thread.

The guy who shot the black folks in church wasn't dangerous?

Yeah he was and the men who flew planes into the Towers were dangerous too. You stupidity is getting boring.

 

[PredFan]

View attachment 68114

Where are all the dangerous Muslims? We know the rightwing extremists in this country are dangerous.

You don't know shit idiot. That has been proven.

And yet you can't produce any dangerous Muslims in the US.

In contrast, I can produce the so-called militias supporting people like Clive Bundy. Armed gangs ready to gun down federal law enforcement.

They are not dangerous simply because you say they are you stupid fuck. Go play in the street and quit derailing this thread.

So the armed gangs supporting Bundy weren't dangerous, but the unarmed protesters at Trump's rallies are terrorists.

Does that sum it up accurately?

We aren't talking about people at the Trump rallies asshole. You are just too stupid to talk to. Dismissed.