Learn the truth about Islam.

DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
edited December 2010 in Spurious Generalities
Many people seem to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. They believe it is a moral religion and that is not a threat to whites and to western civilization. I will now show you the truth behind Islam and will update this thread over the next few days because there is a lot to share. Because there is so much infol from many sources this will be multiple posts.

Pedophilia in the Koran
The Quran allows pedophilia. Though there is no verse that clearly promote pedophilia, there are some verses that allow pedophilia.
The Quran has stipulated a waiting period for women to get remarried once they are divorced, or their husbands died. This waiting period is called Iddah as mentioned in the Quran. But there is an exception that the god of the Quran prescribes for a group of women even though they fall in any of the above category. The Quran says:
O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo itha nakahtumu almuminati thumma tallaqtumoohunna min qabli an tamassoohunna fama lakum AAalayhinna min AAiddatin taAAtaddoonaha famattiAAoohunna wasarrihoohunna sarahan jameelan [Quran. 33:49]
From the verses above it is understood that Iddah (stipulated waiting period) is tied to sex. If one woman is not touched by her husband, she does not have to observe any waiting period at all.
So, one of the reasons for the god of the Quran to stipulate Iddah is to avoid any chances of pregnancy. It is not clear what other reasons there may be to have the Iddah period stipulated.
Now, after mentioning women who haven’t yet been used for sex, the Quran goes further to say that women who need to observe the Iddah period (three months) and the time-span too. We see:
Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
Waalla-ee ya-isna mina almaheedi min nisa-ikum ini irtabtum faAAiddatuhunna thalathatu ashhurin waalla-ee lam yahidna waolatu al-ahmali ajaluhunna an yadaAAna hamlahunna waman yattaqi Allaha yajAAal lahu min amrihi yusran. [Quran. 65:4]
Here Iddah is prescribed to categories of women. First it says: “Yaisna mina al-maheedhi” = “those women who are desperate of menses” = is an indication to women who reached the stage of menstruation but do not menstruate and of those who reached menopause. Desperate of menses underlines it concerns women who though reached the age, fail to menstruate too. Their Iddah period is three months. (As said earlier, the logic behind this is unknown), Next there comes “Wallaee Lam yahidhna” = “those who have not menstruated yet” this group of women is pre-pubescent girls who have not menstruated yet. Here, the Iddah prescribed for them is the same as three months.
[I would urge readers to pay particular attention to the phrase "Wallaee Lam Yahidhna" = translated as "Those who have not menstruated yet" because it is going to be most important in this article.]
Let us just combine these verses to the verses quoted earlier. If a woman has not been used for sex, she does not have to observe any Iddah at all, as mentioned in 33:49. What is the reason for the prescribed Iddah for those women who haven’t menstruated yet? This is a clear indication that marrying pre-pubescent girls and having sex with them is sanctioned by the Quran.
Bringing Quranic verses, even though their message is obvious, is not enough for some Muslims to be convinced that Quran sponsors paedophilia. They like to assign a different meaning and interpretation for the phrase in the concerned verses (65:4) “Lam Yahidhna” = “Not menstruated yet”. Some Muslims argue this phrase only refers to women who have reached the age of puberty and failed to have courses. This is the prime argument. But seldom does it hold water because the group of women who have reached the age of puberty and do not menstruate is covered in the phrase that comes prior to “Lam yahidhna” in the Quran. That is:”Yaisna min al-Maheedhi” desperate of menstruation. Two categories of women can be desperate of menses:
1. Women who reached menopause 2. Women who reached the stage of puberty but do not menstruate.
So, women who reached the stage of menstruation but fail to have courses are covered in the phrase of the relevant Quranic verses. The phrase is “Yaisna Min al-Maheedhi”. The phrase under trial here is “Lam Yahidhna” which comes next to it. It is simple logic: a group of women covered in the earlier phrase should not need to be repeated in the next phrase. This is the Quran which is considered to be the words of an almighty Allah, hence not a matter of a joke at all.
Secondly, what comes from the Muslims’ side is an argument about “Nisa” mentioned in the verses 65:4. They argue “Nisa” means women so the verse should not be referring pre-pubertal girls. But this is a very lame excuse which can be refuted using the same Quran. See some verses from Quran where we find the word “Nisa“:
1. And [remember the time] when we saved you from Pharaoh’s people, who afflicted you with cruel suffering, slaughtering your sons and sparing [only] your women - which was an awesome trial from your Sustainer; Waith najjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun [Quran. 2:49]
2. Said the chiefs of Pharaoh’s people: “Wilt thou leave Moses and his people, to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon thee and thy gods?” He said: “Their male children will we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible.”
3. And remember we rescued you from Pharaoh’s people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord.
Waith anjaynakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi yuqattiloona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun [Quran 7: 141]
4. Remember! Moses said to his people: “Call to mind the favour of Allah to you when He delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: they set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons, and let your females live: therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.
Waith qala moosa liqawmihi othkuroo niAAmata Allahi AAalaykum ith anjakum min ali firawna yasoomoonakum sooa alAAathabi wayuthabbihoona abnaakum wayastahyoona Nisaakum wafee thalikum balaon min rabbikum AAatheemun [Quran 14:6]
5. And when he brought them the Truth from Our presence, they said: Slay the sons of those who believe with him, and spare their females. But the plot of disbelievers is in naught but error. Falamma jaahum bialhaqqi min AAindina qaloo oqtuloo abnaa allatheena amanoo maAAahu waistahyoo Nisaahum wama kaydu alkafireena illa fee dalalin [Quran 40:25]
All in the above verses, the word “NISA” is used to signify “Female infants”. To get the picture right, it is required to quote Exodus because these verses are replicas of a story depicted in Exodus.
And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah; and he said: ‘When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, ye shall look upon the birthstool: if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.’ [Exodus, Chapter 1: 15-16] And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: ‘Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. [Exodus, Chapter 1:22]
The story of the Israelites under the Pharaoh and his command to kill all male offspring, but let all females live..! If we check all those Quranic verses, it is NISA used to signify female infants; because the story is about Pharaoh commanding to kill all male offspring and letting all female offspring live. So, “NISA” simply means females. That is what we get from the Quran.
.

Comments

  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Now, to reinforce this contention the Quran sanctions pre-pubescent marriage and sex which is paedophilia in a pure sense, the rest of this article will look into the most authentic Tafsirs (Interpretation of the Quran) and to get the exact message of the Quran 65:4 which stipulates Iddah for pre-pubescent girls too. First of all, let us have it from modern day scholars:
    And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
    Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Quran the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible. [Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi: Tafhim al Quran. Commentary on Quran Chapter 65:4]
    Note, what Maududi mentions is giving pre-pubescent girls in marriage and consummating the marriage with them. The interpreter affirms that it is permitted by the Quran, and no Muslim can question or forbid it. This viewpoint is shared by late Mufti of Saudi Arabia Mufti Muhammad ibn Saalih al-Uthaymeen al-Wuhaibi al-Tamimi (1925-2001 CE):
    If a woman does not menstruate, either because she is very young or old and past menopause, then her ‘iddah is three months, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise[Quran. Surah al-Talaaq 65:4]
    Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, Majmoo’at As’ilah tahumm al-Usrah al-Muslimah, p. 61-63.
    http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12667

    Now please note the Age of consent laws in Muslim Nations
    800px-Age_of_Consent.png
  • ObbeObbe Regular
    edited November 2010
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Now onto another aspect of the so called great religion. Bestiality is rampant among Muslim societys and is allowed by the Koran. Read on. In these hadiths, we can ONCE AGAIN witness the genius of Allah, his Messenger and Islam:rolleyes: Zoophilia pardonable but not homosexuality
    Book 38, Number 4448:Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
    If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death. ...


    ...and

    Book 38, Number 4450: Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
    There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.

    Praise Allah for creating a religion that so socially retards normal human interaction, but allowing Muslims to make sweet love to farm animals.
    Miner and DeVos (1960) comment that amongst Arab tribal cultures, "Bestiality with goats, sheep, or camels provides another outlet. These practices are not approved but they are recognized as common among boys." Havelock-Ellis [note 52] states "The Arabs, according to Kocher, chiefly practice bestiality with goats, sheep and mares. The Annamites, according to Mondiere, commonly employ sows and (more especially the young women) dogs."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab

    Child Camel Jocky. Shocking Video of Muslim within!
    http://www.beersteak.com/breaking-news/child-camel-jockeys-united-arab-emirates-shocking-video/


    300px-Nukeit.jpg
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    http://thechroniclesofislam.blogspot.com/2010/03/glory-of-islamic-sexual-slavery-as.html

    In the above link we see the history of sexual slavery committed by Muslims against Europeans throughout there history. Heres a quote from the article.
    As we all know, Muhammad, the Apostle of Justice, was a slave trader. He bought, sold, traded and allowed sexual rights (for Moslem men) over other human beings.

    None of this is in question.

    However, rather than bore you with all of the EVIDENCE of Allah and his Messenger's not only condoning, but advocating this most HOLY of Islamic Institutions, I thought it would be prudent to bring for the judgement of Sharia Scholars (the Mufti Ebrahim Desai) from the most respected organisation: Ask-Imam.com, the online fatwa resource!

    Now brothers, please DRINK the Fruits of Islam and the GLORIOUS benifits that Allah has bestowed upon Moslem men in relation to their ISLAMIC RIGHT to own and use FEMALE SEX SLAVES!

    And before any HATERS of Islam Squeal foul, I will quote the Illustrious Mufti himself:

    "... "It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Sharia makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful." (Under Islamic law, people can be legal possessions)."

    http://thechroniclesofislam.blogspot.com/2010/03/muhammads-22-women-that-we-know-of.html
    Muhammad’s 16 Wives:

    1. Khadija

    2. Sawda

    3. Aesha

    4. Omm Salama

    5. Halsa

    6. Zaynab (of Jahsh)

    7. Jowayriyi

    8. Omm Habiba

    9. Safiya

    10. Maymuna (of Hareth)

    11. Fatema

    12. Hend

    13. Asma (of Saba)

    14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)

    15. Habla

    16. Asma (of Noman)

    Muhammad’s 2 concubines/sex slaves:

    1. Mary (the Christian)
    2. Rayhana

    Muhammad’s 4 devoted followers who who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

    1. Omm Sharik
    2. Maymuna
    3. Zaynab (a third one)
    4. Khawla

    This all for tonight but I will update this thread in a few hours or tommorow. Read this and discover the sickening pedophile cult known as Islam.
  • Gary OakGary Oak Regular
    edited November 2010
    Didn't you say you'd fuck a child?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Gary Oak wrote: »
    Didn't you say you'd fuck a child?

    Not a fucking 9 year old and shit like Islam permits. A 17 or 16 year old I would.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Pan-European Arab Muslim Gang Rape Epidemic
    NYHETER-17s09-09valdtakt-512.jpg
    Today's news from Germany buries the fact that the gang rapists of a 13 year-old were likely Arab Muslim immigrants:

    Shock in Berlin as Suspected Rapists Freed

    Nowhere is the news reported that this is part of a gang rape epidemic sweeping areas with high Arab Muslim immigration.
    http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/757-Pan-European-Arab-Muslim-Gang-Rape-Epidemic.html
    Muslim rapes on the rise in non islamic countrys


    CLOSE [X]


    Unveiled women who get raped deserve it.

    That's the pedagogy preached by the Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, who recently sparked an international stir by pronouncing that women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be "uncovered meat", are at fault if they are raped.

    This is nothing new, of course, and it is somewhat mysterious why the Sheikh's comments have caused any shock at all, since his view is legitimized by various Islamic texts and numerous social and legal Islamic structures. And that is why back in September 2004 in Denmark, al-Hilali's Australian counterpart, the Mufti Shahid Mehdi, declared exactly the same thing, stating that unveiled women are "asking for rape."

    All of this, in turn, explains the skyrocketing epidemic of Muslim rape in non-Islamic countries. Muslim newcomers are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects throughout European nations such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Scandinavia.

    No wonder why many Muslim rapists openly admit their actions and justify them smugly with casual references to their religious and cultural beliefs. This horrifying phenomenon was on display in a court trial in Australia last year, in which a Muslim rapist, going by the name "MSK", taunted his sobbing 14-year-old victim and proudly professed the legitimacy of his sexual assaults on young girls by explaining that his victims were not veiled -- as the Islamic religion mandates women to be. [1]

    "MSK" is from Pakistan. He is doing in Australia what he learned best back home: in some of the most notorious rural areas of Pakistan, gang rape is officially sanctioned as a legitimate form of keeping women marginalized and "in their place." As noted earlier, certain realms of Islam help institutionalize this form of violent misogyny. The Koran, for instance, permits Muslim men to enslave - and have sexual relations with - the women of unbelievers captured in the spoils of war (Sura 4:23-24). The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which is endorsed by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, sanctions this violence, affirming that Muslims can enslave captured infidel women and make them concubines.

    To compound this pathology, a notion has developed within the system of gender apartheid in which Muslims like "MSK" have grown up: the idea that a woman who does not veil herself is somehow responsible for any sexual or physical harm done to her. In the psychopathic mental gymnastics that occur in the perpetrators' minds, the unveiled woman must be sexually punished for violating the "modesty" code. Thus, when Islamic Muftis like Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi declare that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape," they are merely regurgitating a popular theme in many segments of Islamic culture.

    In traditional Islamic law, rape cannot be proven unless four males testify as witnesses (Sura 24:4 and 24:13). In other words, raped women cannot get justice anywhere Islamic law prevails. More horrifying still, a woman who has the courage to say she was raped, and fails to produce the four male witnesses (which is obviously almost always the case), ends up being punished because her accusation is regarded as an admission of pre-marital sex or adultery. And this is why seventy-five percent of the women in prison in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape.

    In Holland, myriad women now bear the horrible scar that has infamously become known as "smiley," whereby one side of the face is cut up from mouth to ear - a war mark left by Muslim rapists as a warning to other women who don't veil themselves.

    In France, the phenomenon of Muslim gang rape as punishment for non-veiling even has a word to describe it: "tournante" (take your turn). In areas where Muslims form the majority (i.e. the Muslim suburb of Courneuve, France), even non-Muslim women feel pressured to veil themselves in fear of Muslim sexual and physical punishment.

    In the context of this epidemic of Muslim violence against women, and the open legitimization of it pronounced by Islamic clerics, one would think that the Western feminists of our time would be up in arms, sympathetically coming to the side of their raped sisters and standing up for women's rights in general.

    But this is just not the case.

    The West's leftist feminists are responding with an apathetic heartlessness and deafening silence. [2]

    It's all very much understandable and expected, of course: it is politically correct and cutting-edge to scream with moral indignation about a woman's right to an abortion in the West, but to actually care for - and come to the public defense of - the female victim of a gang-rape committed by Muslims is unthinkable. This is so because admitting the Muslim rape epidemic, and the theology and institutions on which it is based, and denouncing it, would violate the central code of the "progressive" leftist faith: anti-Americanism and cultural relativism. No culture can be said to be better than any other - unless it is American culture, which is always fair game for derision and ridicule. But to criticize any Third World culture in general - and an adversary culture in particular - is to surrender the political cause and faith.

    The worldview of Oslo Professor of Anthropology, Dr. Unni Wikan, is perfect in representing leftist feminists' stand on Muslim rape and Islamic gender apartheid. Wikan's solution for the high incidence of Muslims raping Norwegian women stresses neither the punishment of the perpetrators nor the repudiation of the Islamic theology that legitimizes such abuse of women. Instead, Wikan recommends that Norwegian women veil themselves. This is because, in Wikan's view, Western women must take their share of responsibility for the rapes, since they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and should, therefore, adapt themselves to it. Sheikhs Taj al-Din al-Hilali and Shahid Mehdi would be proud.

    It has long been evident that Western leftist feminists couldn't care less about real actual breathing women; they care only about their ideological beliefs. For them, the victims of Muslim rape can be easily forgotten and dismissed -- for the pursuit of their ultimate goal: to aid and abet the West's totalitarian enemies and to wreak the destruction of their own free societies which bestow the individual liberties and rights that they despise and abhor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

    Peacerain.jpg

    Domestic Violence
    Translations of Sura 4:34

    The first stage gives three Muslim translations of Sura 4:34, which should be read carefully in order to understand the Muslims’ interpretation at the fourth stage.


    4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited November 2010
    Yep, Islam is shit. Too bad we can't just introduce a virus that'll only kill them. :/
  • StrykerStryker New Arrival
    edited November 2010
    Aye and the Bible is just as bad.

    Most Muslims I know are just like us and working away to pay the bills at the end of the month.

    To confess I didn't read through all of the stuff posted here. I have got s full translated copy of the Q'ran here, as well as a copy of Talmud and a full copy of the Bible (not the sanitized one most are used to) and all are a mish-mash genocide, murder, incest, beastiality, and general cruelty as well.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Stryker wrote: »
    Aye and the Bible is just as bad.

    Most Muslims I know are just like us and working away to pay the bills at the end of the month.

    To confess I didn't read through all of the stuff posted here. I have got s full translated copy of the Q'ran here, as well as a copy of Talmud and a full copy of the Bible (not the sanitized one most are used to) and all are a mish-mash genocide, murder, incest, beastiality, and general cruelty as well.

    Haha the ramblings of a multicuturalist. You think Muslims are so good? Tell me would you want to live in the middle east? I guess so since it's just as bad as Christian based nations?:rolleyes: You said you have a talmud. Have you had a chance to read what it says about all those who aren't part of the "chosen" tribe? What do you mean by a "full" version of the bible? I assume you mean the gnostic texts. if thats the case then OK I agree the normal bible isn't complete. Notice though how Christian Nations aren't the ones trying to kill all non believers like the Muslims do. Before you bring up the inquisition realizer that Christianity has evolved past the dark ages unlike Muslims.
  • edited November 2010
    Once again beaner, you miss the point. The real problem with Jizzlam is that it's meant to be taken seriously as the infallible orders of the dude upstairs and his final apostle, when really it was written by a primitive warlord 1400 years ago to consolidate the Arab people to conquer the known world. Dfg and his ilk are taking their orders from a man who died in 632 AD. It's not so much what's the in koran as how it's supposed to be taken. Just like Kyker said, there's plenty of nasty shit in the bible but it's not meant to be taken seriously.
  • StrykerStryker New Arrival
    edited November 2010
    Haha the ramblings of a multicuturalist. You think Muslims are so good? Tell me would you want to live in the middle east? I guess so since it's just as bad as Christian based nations?:rolleyes: You said you have a talmud. Have you had a chance to read what it says about all those who aren't part of the "chosen" tribe? What do you mean by a "full" version of the bible? I assume you mean the gnostic texts. if thats the case then OK I agree the normal bible isn't complete. Notice though how Christian Nations aren't the ones trying to kill all non believers like the Muslims do. Before you bring up the inquisition realizer that Christianity has evolved past the dark ages unlike Muslims.


    Never said that Muslims are so good. Just remarked that they are no better or worse than Christians or Jews for that matter. Some Xtians believe that they are the only chosen people (tribe if you like) and the rest of us are destined to fry in horrible agony!

    It's all farm fertilizer my friend. Designed to frighten children and insecure adults.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Stryker wrote: »
    Never said that Muslims are so good. Just remarked that they are no better or worse than Christians or Jews for that matter. Some Xtians believe that they are the only chosen people (tribe if you like) and the rest of us are destined to fry in horrible agony!

    It's all farm fertilizer my friend. Designed to frighten children and insecure adults.

    So Christians are in the habit of flying planes into buildings? We behead people a lot to right? Do Christians blow themselves up for God? Do Christians throw acid in girls faces who try to attend school? Dont bring up some random whackjob either. I want to know if Islam is no worse then why dont Christians do this stuff even at a fraction of the rate as Mudslimes. What a retarded statement bro. Seriously Muslims are no worse?:rolleyes::facepalm:
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited November 2010
    So Christians are in the habit of flying planes into buildings? We behead people a lot to right? Do Christians blow themselves up for God? Do Christians throw acid in girls faces who try to attend school? Dont bring up some random whackjob either. I want to know if Islam is no worse then why dont Christians do this stuff even at a fraction of the rate as Mudslimes. What a retarded statement bro. Seriously Muslims are no worse?:rolleyes::facepalm:

    If you think, Islam is 1400 or so years old, we used to have corpses hanging by the side of the road in the UK up until 1832. Look at the way the abos were treated in australia, they were hunted for sport well into the 1950's. Americans with the native americans and then the blacks.

    In and around Europe around 1400, some trials consisted of burning people with red hot iron and if 'god had not healed the wound' within a couple of days, the person was drowded, strangled or burnt to death. Some times they would be strangled near to death, then have the guts cut out of them and burned in front of them then have their limbs chopped off and finally their head.

    We really cannot take the mortal high ground here.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Ok the native American thing was kinda wrong but blacks? Come on if it weren't for us theyd still be in loin cloths dancing around a fire. We did the niggers a favor with slavery. A place to live food civilization all for some work. The thing is while Christians have done bad in the past we got out of the dark ages and became civilized unlike the Muslims. Yes I can absolutly take the moral high ground over muslims.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited November 2010
    Yes I can absolutly take the moral high ground over muslims.


    So the people you have taken side with have had 2000 years to formulate society on the message they got from god and the other fellas have had 1400 or so years and yet you judge them by your own standards.

    Lest not Ye Judge.

    As I said, if you look at how our cultures were 1400 years after Jesus, we were a pretty ruthless bunch of fuckers. Imagine if you lived then and some mother fuckers were 'throwing fire at your from a spaceship' - for that is how it must seem for some of the Afghans. The war machine that the Soviets brung was followed by years of internal violence only countered when a state that would go to the extreme took charge.

    People were that fucked up, they only stopped and listened if people were beheded. Shit like that got their attention.

    As it did back in the day when we had public executions. It was a message.

    As I have said, the best thing we could have done there and in Iraq is to go in, cut the head of the snake off - as we did capturing Sadam and how in Afghanistan we should have persued the Taliban leadership rather than letting local factions get dirty for no reward.

    We knew the media would be there and tried to keep it clean. It turned mean. In the future, the press should be banned from active war zones so soldiers can more properly achieve their objectives.

    Let the soldier do his job.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited November 2010
    It's 2010. They should know better by now.
  • edited November 2010
    Islam is a religion of peace.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Islam is a religion of peace.

    Please fucking tell me this was a sarcastic statement or you were joking? You cant really believer that shit about it being a religion of peace do you?
  • edited November 2010
    Please fucking tell me this was a sarcastic statement or you were joking? You cant really believer that shit about it being a religion of peace do you?

    ITT: spicchez get's himself trolled hard. Nice troll they're JAA.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    I really cant tell if I'm being trolled or not:confused: I know JAA is liberal as hell so it dosnt surpriese me but I also know he's pretty smart even as a liberal so a statement like them being peaceful would surprise me. Im confused now:(
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2010
    copy pasta is copy pasta'd
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    copy pasta is copy pasta'd

    Yes faggot hence the quotations.:facepalm:
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited November 2010
    fanglekai wrote: »
    It's 2010. They should know better by now.

    For them it is 1431.
  • fanglekaifanglekai Regular
    edited November 2010
    dr rocker wrote: »
    For them it is 1431.

    Oh right cause they used computers, airplanes and AKs and bombs in 1431.
  • edited November 2010
    So Christians are in the habit of flying planes into buildings? We behead people a lot to right? Do Christians blow themselves up for God? Do Christians throw acid in girls faces who try to attend school? Dont bring up some random whackjob either. I want to know if Islam is no worse then why dont Christians do this stuff even at a fraction of the rate as Mudslimes. What a retarded statement bro. Seriously Muslims are no worse?:rolleyes::facepalm:

    Not anymore, we don't.

    Most Christians today live in places where there is more emphasis on secular life and secular justice. In much of the Arab world, things are still shitty. You still have a decent chance of getting killed for no good reason and life generally sucks. Religious extremism permeates and ferments in places like this.

    In places where there are Christians living in equally shitty, barbaric conditions, you'll find they behave very similarly.
  • DysgraphiaDysgraphia Locked
    edited November 2010
    You got your ass flamed on totse2. LOL.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    Dysgraphia wrote: »
    You got your ass flamed on totse2. LOL.

    Yeah I know:mad: There to many Muslim lovers over there.
  • dr rockerdr rocker Regular
    edited November 2010
    fanglekai wrote: »
    Oh right cause they used computers, airplanes and AKs and bombs in 1431.

    Please, take a second to think this through.

    When ever a technologically inferior people have waged war, they have had to very quickly come to terms with using any weapons they come across.

    Its the equivilent to the English using more advanced weapons on Joan of Arc. If we had made an advancement in weapons or an exposed weakness, then it would have been taken advantage of.

    Do not think as Al Quida as the terrorists the word has to fight to survive. They are just a group that was ignored for too long and had a chance to grow. They were original in their style of attack in some ways an this lead to their success.

    Americans need to look a little into what old Osama orriginally said he would do. Then look at what he has done. He has trolled the fuck out of America.
  • edited November 2010
    dr rocker wrote: »
    Please, take a second to think this through.

    When ever a technologically inferior people have waged war, they have had to very quickly come to terms with using any weapons they come across.

    Its the equivilent to the English using more advanced weapons on Joan of Arc. If we had made an advancement in weapons or an exposed weakness, then it would have been taken advantage of.

    Do not think as Al Quida as the terrorists the word has to fight to survive. They are just a group that was ignored for too long and had a chance to grow. They were original in their style of attack in some ways an this lead to their success.

    Americans need to look a little into what old Osama orriginally said he would do. Then look at what he has done. He has trolled the fuck out of America.

    Apologists like you are exactly what we don't need. Back in WWII, we knew what we were facing. We knew we were fighting men in Europe, and we treated them like men, there were almost no instances of what today would be called a "human rights violation," German and American/British POWs were with a few exceptions treated like fellow soldiers by their captors. In the East, we were facing animals, and after what the nips did to YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS they were lucky they were only bombed twice. These vermin BEHEAD Americans, YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS, on the internet, but liberal assholes like you say "well it's our own fault for imperialism/israel/oil/the crusades/whatever the excuse dujour is." I say fuck All of you. You want your camelfucking buddies so much? Fine. Build a great big wall around the middle east, send leftists like you over to live with your moon worshipping friends, extract Christians from the middle eastern countries were they are treated like animals, and use the whole area as an ordnance testing range. Hell, if the US and Russia are feeling particularly froggy, get rid of those stupid above ground nuclear testing bans and we can have some real fireworks. Traitors get the fuck out.
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    ^^ Fucking this. The Muslims are almost bad enough to make me wanna support Israel.
  • StrykerStryker New Arrival
    edited November 2010
    So Christians are in the habit of flying planes into buildings? We behead people a lot to right? Do Christians blow themselves up for God? Do Christians throw acid in girls faces who try to attend school? Dont bring up some random whackjob either. I want to know if Islam is no worse then why dont Christians do this stuff even at a fraction of the rate as Mudslimes. What a retarded statement bro. Seriously Muslims are no worse?:rolleyes::facepalm:

    You're right we don't.

    We just fly over their countryside at 30,000ft and carpet bomb their farms and fields.

    We just spray them with phosphorus and other nasty chemicals or stand off 2000 miles away and lob missiles into their villages. Damn! we are so civilized!

    Not to mention the Crusades where every man, woman and child was slaughtered in Jerusalem until the streets ran with blood all in the name of God and Christianity.

    Oh Yes! Christians are the epitome peace and loving!!
  • edited November 2010
    Stryker wrote: »
    You're right we don't.

    We just fly over their countryside at 30,000ft and carpet bomb their farms and fields.

    We just spray them with phosphorus and other nasty chemicals or stand off 2000 miles away and lob missiles into their villages. Damn! we are so civilized!

    On yeah, military operations with civilian casualties are morally equivalent to terrorist attacks targeting civilians. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    nice try with the shitty cliche leftist false equivalencies fuckface.
    Stryker wrote: »
    Not to mention the Crusades where every man, woman and child was slaughtered in Jerusalem until the streets ran with blood all in the name of God and Christianity.

    Oh Yes! Christians are the epitome peace and loving!!

    Way to prove yourself a jackass, as anyone with even the tiniest inkling of history beyond popular culture knows that the Crusades were defensive wars, the religious element only came about to rally the peasantry. In short, you are a fool. Have a nice day, overweight cumsniffing dickwad.
  • StrykerStryker New Arrival
    edited November 2010
    Oh my how eloquent you are! Such a great command of the English language too!

    Can't you say anything sensible? Without using foul language? Others would be more interested in what you have to say then.
  • edited November 2010
    Stryker wrote: »
    Can't you say anything sensible? Without using foul language?

    No, but I can draw pictures real good
    G3k3p.png
  • NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
    edited November 2010
    Damn I wrote up a reply on here and it didn't get through because the forum shat out. First of all nice picture, ***** quality.

    Any racist who thinks muslims and Islam aren't a problem because they "hate the j00s" are retards, on an epic proportion infact. Another point I wanted to make about muslims are that a good portion of them marry their first cousins. Most muslims/arabs now unfortunately having mud blood and being mixed and breeding is bad enough, now they do it with their cousins. Whether they do this because of an attraction to each other or because they want to get more family members into our nations and claim more benefits (which I suspect is the main reason) is irrelevent; babies at the result of incestuous relationships have more health problems and defects. Now it's whitey who is expected to help these people out and support them :rolleyes: Muslims are a threat to the nation, more so than religious jews (or otherwise) or christians are, even though they all suck and religion should be outlawed.

    Genetically and population wise, this isn't good for a nation. But I'll make a more indepth post about this later.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2010
    Stryker wrote: »
    You're right we don't.

    We just fly over their countryside at 30,000ft and carpet bomb their farms and fields.

    We have not carpet bombed anyone since Hanoi.
    We just spray them with phosphorus and other nasty chemicals or stand off 2000 miles away and lob missiles into their villages. Damn! we are so civilized!

    A bit of a simplistic representation your par don't you think?
    Not to mention the Crusades where every man, woman and child was slaughtered in Jerusalem until the streets ran with blood all in the name of God and Christianity.

    Nobody is alive that committed those acts or was hurt by them.
    Oh Yes! Christians are the epitome peace and loving!!

    Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all idiots, next?
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    We have not carpet bombed anyone since Hanoi.



    A bit of a simplistic representation your par don't you think?



    Nobody is alive that committed those acts or was hurt by them.



    Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all idiots, next?

    STFU faggot.
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2010
    STFU faggot.


    You are being watched very closely so please keep talking.
  • edited November 2010
    You are being watched very closely so please keep talking.
    STFU faggot
  • DirtySanchezDirtySanchez Regular
    edited November 2010
    You are being watched very closely so please keep talking.

    STFU faggot
  • Darth BeaverDarth Beaver Meine Ehre heißt Treue
    edited November 2010
    STFU faggot
    STFU faggot


    Awww how cute, twins...
  • edited December 2010
    Niggers, all of you.
Sign In or Register to comment.