Islam is a Religion of Peace, Goodwill and Ethical Treatment of all People

[HonestChieffan]

Dennis Kucinich (D-Lilliputian): “Islam is a Religion of Peace, Goodwill and Ethical Treatment of all People”…

And Dennis feeds his Unicorn Golden raindrops and drinks honeydew. The mothership left him here.


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement regarding the Committee on Homeland Security hearing titled “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.”

“In the nine years since the dreadful attacks on September 11th, America has sought to reconcile differences among ourselves and with the world. We have sought friendship with Muslim and Arab communities. President Obama, at the beginning of his term, traveled to the Middle East, underscoring the importance of that region.

“Despite efforts to improve relations between our nation and the Muslim and Arab world, America has stumbled. Two wars have been waged in the Middle East, further degrading our image among the world’s Muslim and Arab people.

“A Congressional hearing to investigate our friends and neighbors jeopardizes the fragile progress we have made and creates a longer gap for peace to bridge.

“This hearing insinuates that violence and the Muslim religion go hand in hand. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam is a religion based upon peace, goodwill and the ethical treatment of all people on this planet.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=228984

[ForeverChiefs58]

Taliban Hang Eight Year-Old Boy


Taliban hit bottom, keep digging again – but Obama and Cameron still want to talk to them:

Suspected Taliban militants hanged an eight-year-old boy in southern Afghanistan after ordering his father, a local police commander, to surrender, a government spokesman says.

The child was kidnapped by militants in Greshk district of the southern province of Helmand four days ago and was hanged on Friday, provincial governor spokesman Daud Ahmadi said on Saturday.

“The militants had warned his father, who is a local police commander, to surrender with his police vehicle and weapons, otherwise they would kill his son,” Ahmad said.

The Taliban have not commented.

After being driven from power in late 2001, Taliban militants have killed dozens of people accused of spying.

Last year a seven-year old boy was killed by the Taliban for being a spy for foreign soldiers in the same province.

Elsewhere, an operation by Afghan and coalition forces in Helmand left 16 militants dead overnight, officials said.

They also confiscated a drug cache of 2000 kilograms of poppy, six kilograms of heroin, 50 kilograms of hashish and 150 kilograms of morphine, as well as 20 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, which is used as an explosive component.

They are the Taliban. Drug Dealers and child murderers for Allah.

http://undhimmi.com/2011/07/24/talib...-year-old-boy/

[LiveSteam]

Originally Posted by Frankie

In no small part it's because it would be akin to you or I making a big sign against skin heads and Neo-Nazis and walk right into their camp in the middle of an anti-Jewish/black gun frenzy. Nobody is arguing that radical elements with their crazy radical agenda has taken the stage in the Islamic world. We are arguing whether it's because of the religion itself or political developments in relatively recent history allowing/encouraging their rise.

The fact is they are there and their very radical justification of violence makes them very dangerous to be too vocal against. Nevertheless there are movements afoot and websites, etc that shows there are clear objections in the Islamic world to the radical element.

You have more ****ing excuses for your peoples BULL SHIT! Than Linzy Lohan, Paris Hilton combined. Id throw Anna Nicole Smith in there to. But she dead.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by go bowe

ok, sworn enemies of the terrorists and palestinians in general say this guy is the most important cleric in the world, like some kind of pope?

and this is surprising?

there is no most important cleric in the muslim world, each sect of which there are many has it's own clerics that say what their audiences want to hear...

saudi arabia has a huge population of salafi islamists, fundamental 10th century types with a perverted view of islam...

that clerics in salafi mosques would say such things is no surprise either...

both have their own reasons for the claims they make, few of which should be taken without a grain of salt...

Sorry, I gotta call bullshit on this one. There is no leading cleric of the Islamic world? There are just as many, if not more, different sects of Christianity...but when the Pope, or the leader of the Southern Baptists, or just some plain Joe off of the street says anything, folks like you and Frankie claim they speak for all Christians. But no, no, no....leading clerics in Islam don't speak for even their own sects...so when the promise suicide bombers 72 virgins and a spot in paradise, I suppose they are just talking out of their ass? And Saudi Arabia, which is considered to be one of the most conservative Muslim countries on the planet, is now just a bunch of radicals? Despite the fact that their government is completely stable, they have a good relationship with the west, and they are not on any lists for state sponsored terrorists, like Iran and Syria are, and like Iraq was when Saddam was in charge.

And I don't care if these clerics are just saying what their audiences want to hear...that is not the role of a cleric, or any religious leader. Their role is to guide their flock the best the can to assure their people eternal salvation...even if that means saying unpopular things. They are the moral compasses of their people....so when they promise bombers virgins and paradise, which way do you think their moral compass is pointing?

Are Muslims religious leaders responsible for anything?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Are Muslims religious leaders responsible for anything?

Stoning
Denial of rights for anyone not just like them
Helping their people live in the 7th century
High quality Poppy Farming advancements
Killing lots of innocent people with martyrs
Leading the effort to exterminate Christians and Jews
Marriage of little girls
Diddling small boys

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Still bitter after all these years? I guess its true that some old dogs can't learn any new tricks.

What could I possibly be bitter about? You being ignorant doesn't make me bitter. Now, I have to laugh at you thinking that quotation proved much of what you said. But, if you think you need to argue, we can go over this.

"If they ended because they weren't working they would have ended a great deal sooner. Only the First Crusade was "successful". The looting of other lands without having to occupy the lands appealed to the rulers of Western Europe. They were Renaissance Vikings.

The Popes who led the crusades lost their backing because the general population saw nothing but death, loss, and atrocities. The rulers of Western Europe realized this and followed the mindset of the local population as opposed to the rule of the Popes."

First of all, your eras are messed up by calling Western leaders during the Crusades "Renaissance Vikings." The Renaissance occurred 250-500 years after the Crusades. If you can't get the basic timeline of Western Civilization down, I have little hope that you can provide any sort of decent analysis on the events that occurred during that timeline.

Secondly, the Popes didn't lose any support when they led the charge. Especially from the general population, who remained enthralled with the tales of chivalry and miracles that came from the Crusades. Check out the Children's Crusade, which was a pack of idiot peasants, and the Pope told them to shut up and go home -- not crusade to the Holy Land.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Crusades morphed overwhelmingly into secular struggles. Throughout the crusades, the Papacy turned into a secondary player, and the rulers became the impetus of following crusades. Your comment that rulers of Europe seemed to turn on the Pope and follow the local population's desires against the Crusades is incredibly ignorant and has no basis in historical reality. Good Lord. It's like saying King George III valiantly fought alongside George Washington in the Revolutionary War.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

They can be declared Fakir by a rite of Takfir. Basically that means they can be called non-believers by the major sect of Islam. If they disagree, they can still participate in rites associated with Islam, but it is a slap in the face - one of which (once again) major leaders of the world have failed to do even with someone as pure evil as Usama bin Laden.

Well, if Bin Laden could not even get kicked out, then I think some of the responsibility of the creation of these radical sect must fall on the clerics and the Islamic religious leaders.

[BucEyedPea]

Stoning

Some places still eat each other. Does that mean we invade?

Denial of rights for anyone not just like them.

There is such a thing as the right to self-determination, their religion and culture whether you agree with it or not.
Using America as a force for good in the world through invasions and dropping bombs as a tool of social engineering has a certain name.
Are you a international progressive now HCf? Sure sounds like it. Welcome to the left.

Let me see who else thought they were liberating the world or certain people? Napoleon, the Japanese circa WWII, the former Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Helping their people live in the 7th century

What about indigenous native tribes in some remote places who help their people live like they're in the Stone Age? Time to invade, drop some drones and wipe 'em out if we ca.

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

High quality Poppy Farming advancements

Ah no, that practice was done away with by the Taliban and was restored after the US went in.
Hey, the CIA has to be paid with off-budget money for some things.

Killing lots of innocent people with bombs and drones

We do this, though. May I ask what is right about it?

Leading the effort to exterminate Christians and Jews

Nah, they just want us off their lands.

What do drones and bombs do to them? Exterminate them.

Marriage of little girls

That was done in the west for thousands of years before too. This is really none of our business but reforming them with military invasions that kill those little girls isn't more noble than what you're trying to correct.

Diddling small boys

Some Christians have been found guilty of this too. Seriously you don't think that doesn't happen here?

Keep drinkin' the NeoCon Kool-Aid!

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Well, if Bin Laden could not even get kicked out, then I think some of the responsibility of the creation of these radical sect must fall on the clerics and the Islamic religious leaders.

You forgot US Foreign Policy that has been killin' their people for the past 20 years. The CIA calls this "blowback." Responsibility as blame without looking at some of our policies isn't going to improve things.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You forgot US Foreign Policy that has been killin' their people for the past 20 years. The CIA calls this "blowback." Responsibility as blame without looking at some of our policies isn't going to improve things.

US Foreign Policy has nothing to do with Islamic clerics doing the right thing and expelling a mass murderer from their ranks. You can spew all you want about causes, the CIA, and whatever, but the terrorists did what they did. NOTHING that had been done in the past justifies or excuses what they did. If we are going down that road, we could use 9/11 as a justification to destroy the arab world. After all, it would be their fault because they attacked us, right?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

US Foreign Policy has nothing to do with Islamic clerics doing the right thing and expelling a mass murderer from their ranks. You can spew all you want about causes, the CIA, and whatever, but the terrorists did what they did. NOTHING that had been done in the past justifies or excuses what they did. If we are going down that road, we could use 9/11 as a justification to destroy the arab world. After all, it would be their fault because they attacked us, right?

Nothing justifies what we've done over there either except when it is done clearly in self-defense and on the right target. We are making this worse and this has resulted in the longest war. It's a farce. You don't commit evil to correct it.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nothing justifies what we've done over there either except when it is done clearly in self-defense and on the right target. We are making this worse and this has resulted in the longest war. It's a farce. You don't commit evil to correct it.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that we somehow provoked 9/11 and share the blame for that horrible day. I disagree. There is nothing that the United States has done that warranted that attack. You want to equate the United States to radical Muslim savages, go right ahead, but I cannot agree with that conclusion.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

There is nothing that the United States has done that warranted that attack.

I won't argue with that. But for the sake of argument let's change the word "warranted" to "provoked." The answer to that would then be that 2000 pounds would add up to ton. 9/11 was not provoked by one act from the West. But the whole history of the 20th century.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

What could I possibly be bitter about? You being ignorant doesn't make me bitter. Now, I have to laugh at you thinking that quotation proved much of what you said. But, if you think you need to argue, we can go over this.

"If they ended because they weren't working they would have ended a great deal sooner. Only the First Crusade was "successful". The looting of other lands without having to occupy the lands appealed to the rulers of Western Europe. They were Renaissance Vikings.

The Popes who led the crusades lost their backing because the general population saw nothing but death, loss, and atrocities. The rulers of Western Europe realized this and followed the mindset of the local population as opposed to the rule of the Popes."

First of all, your eras are messed up by calling Western leaders during the Crusades "Renaissance Vikings." The Renaissance occurred 250-500 years after the Crusades. If you can't get the basic timeline of Western Civilization down, I have little hope that you can provide any sort of decent analysis on the events that occurred during that timeline.

Secondly, the Popes didn't lose any support when they led the charge. Especially from the general population, who remained enthralled with the tales of chivalry and miracles that came from the Crusades. Check out the Children's Crusade, which was a pack of idiot peasants, and the Pope told them to shut up and go home -- not crusade to the Holy Land.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Crusades morphed overwhelmingly into secular struggles. Throughout the crusades, the Papacy turned into a secondary player, and the rulers became the impetus of following crusades. Your comment that rulers of Europe seemed to turn on the Pope and follow the local population's desires against the Crusades is incredibly ignorant and has no basis in historical reality. Good Lord. It's like saying King George III valiantly fought alongside George Washington in the Revolutionary War.

Ahh Jenson, you need no one to be bitter about, I don't place myself that high in your little aerie. You seem to be bitter without any outside source necessary.

You bring up the aberration of the Children's Crusade and still managed to get quite a bit wrong. I think Innocent was the Pope and while he did not sanction the journey led by Stephen of Cloyes out of France, he was not able to stop it as you stated he did. Those 30,000 children were told by Stephen the waters would part at Marseilles. They obviously did not, the children boarded a boat bound for parts east and were never heard from again. A few travelers mentioned they saw child slaves taken in the Holy Lands but it was not verified.

Maybe you meant the other mislabeled Childrens Crusade of 1212? That one was led by Nicholas out of Germany, but he had a great many adults in his gathering of 20,000. They met with the Pope (again I think it was Pope Innocent III) and he asked them to turn home. Calling either of these a true "Crusade" though is an extrapolation of realism to the extreme. The Childrens' Crusades were no more a part of the Crusades than the Shepherd's Crusade or the Tenth Crusade.

And there are many more articles I can quote which state the common man finally caused enough divisions between nations, and Kings vs. the Papacy because they were tired of dying and losing family while gaining nothing for themselves. Logistics and true Christianity are what finally killed the true Crusades.

However, I still stand by my statement Roger Bacon stated the wealthy got wealthier and the impoverished became bitter against the Christian leaders which caused the movement to finally die.

[ForeverChiefs58]

Originally Posted by Frankie

I won't argue with that. But for the sake of argument let's change the word "warranted" to "provoked." The answer to that would then be that 2000 pounds would add up to ton. 9/11 was not provoked by one act from the West. But the whole history of the 20th century.

WTF???? This is a smelly bag of pig shit!!! **** YOU!!! If you are moderate, your religion is ****ed!


One could also argue the sick, evil, smelly hand mother ****ers "hijacking" your religion of peace have warranted and provoked the rest of the civilized world to exterminate every mother ****ing mosque from here to mecca. So **** you in your hog hole!!!!!!!!!

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by KCWolfman

Ahh Jenson, you need no one to be bitter about, I don't place myself that high in your little aerie. You seem to be bitter without any outside source necessary.

You bring up the aberration of the Children's Crusade and still managed to get quite a bit wrong. I think Innocent was the Pope and while he did not sanction the journey led by Stephen of Cloyes out of France, he was not able to stop it as you stated he did. Those 30,000 children were told by Stephen the waters would part at Marseilles. They obviously did not, the children boarded a boat bound for parts east and were never heard from again. A few travelers mentioned they saw child slaves taken in the Holy Lands but it was not verified.

Maybe you meant the other mislabeled Childrens Crusade of 1212? That one was led by Nicholas out of Germany, but he had a great many adults in his gathering of 20,000. They met with the Pope (again I think it was Pope Innocent III) and he asked them to turn home. Calling either of these a true "Crusade" though is an extrapolation of realism to the extreme. The Childrens' Crusades were no more a part of the Crusades than the Shepherd's Crusade or the Tenth Crusade.

And there are many more articles I can quote which state the common man finally caused enough divisions between nations, and Kings vs. the Papacy because they were tired of dying and losing family while gaining nothing for themselves. Logistics and true Christianity are what finally killed the true Crusades.

However, I still stand by my statement Roger Bacon stated the wealthy got wealthier and the impoverished became bitter against the Christian leaders which caused the movement to finally die.

As you scramble around the internet to find information about something you really have no idea about, let me just point out the frustrating reality with arguing on the internet: not only can people be ignorant, they make up stuff that the opponent said. For instance, this line: ". . . he was not able to stop it as you stated he did."

You think it was Pope Innocent III? You're such a fraud here, and adding these intentionally humbling remarks, as if you've studied this up to recall offhand "Stephen of Coyles" but can't remember, "Oh dear, was it Innocent II or III or perhaps an Urban", is pathetically obvious. You're a rookie.

I'd love to see your internet articles about how kings forced the Papacy to end the Crusades by listening to the "true Christian" peasants. Go on, fetch, you fake.