anonymous #fundie

anonymous #fundie fstdt.com

[ on someone supporting torturing the family members of alleged terrorists in order to get information ]

We wouldn't even be talking about this shit if leftists and phony rightists weren't so damn weak on Islam.

I don't blame TimeToTurn, I blame the left. The longer the west does nothing, the harder it will be to fight Islamic supremacism without compromising your own humanity. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to solve the problem of Islamization of the west humanely. We will either be stuck with a growing problem of terrorism, become a police state or it will be a bloody civil war when people have had enough of Islamic supremacists defiling our otherwise free and tolerant societies, forming no-go zones, calling for Sharia law, forming Sharia vigilante groups and doing terrorism etc.

When people peacefully criticized Islam - the left said that was "hateful" and "Islam is a religion of peace".

When people argued for restrictions on Muslim immigration - the left said that was "racist", even though Islam isn't a race and immigration isn't a right but a privilege.

When people argued that Muslim immigrants should integrate into western society or leave - the left said "no we have to be multicultural and all cultures are equal". A sensible immigration policy could have solved most of these problems, but the left opposed any discussions on it, ignored all the connections between Islamic doctrine (such as the perpetual warfare doctrine in Surahs 9:5 and 9:29) and Islamic terrorism so now Europe has a significant 5th column on their soil that they can't even identify easily let alone deport (because many of them are 2nd generation migrants with citizenship, action can only be taken after the terrorist attack has already been committed). And the left wants more. More Muslim immigrants and Muslim refugees, including with mandatory quotas so they want this imposed on Eastern Europe as well, which is barely recovering from half a century of communism. It's almost as if they're intentionally setting up conditions for a civil war in the west. Neither malice nor stupidity should be tolerated of our politicians.

95 comments

old comment by

We wouldn't have had the capitol shooter, Olympic Park, abortion clinic bombings, Robert Dear and the Army of God, Christian Identity, KKK, Aryan nations, etc if people weren't soft on far right Christians. Though he'll likely come up with some bullshit, go on some anti Islamic rant. Even in the thread he was loathe to condemn non Muslim terrorists. Even after he finally did, he said he'd only condemn on his terms. Ironically it was after he was called out for bigotry and prejudice and either enabling at best and supporting terrorists at worst. How ironic he said not a damn thing after Robert Dear or Capitol shooter though they were very recent.

old comment by

"We wouldn't have had the capitol shooter, Olympic Park, abortion clinic bombings, Robert Dear and the Army of God, Christian Identity, KKK, Aryan nations, etc if people weren't soft on far right Christians. Though he'll likely come up with some bullshit, go on some anti Islamic rant."

Here we go again with the idiotic moral equivalence. So let's break that down:

I'm also not sure how you intend to be "hard on far right Christians" considering: a. almost all of them are US citizens and can't be deported whereas most fundamentalist Muslims come from outside the US and can be denied a visa if necessary b. "far right Christians" is a vague group of people that includes a handful of extremists yes, but also includes libertarians who are distrustful of government and want a smaller role of the government, particularly the federal government, social conservatives who aren't using violence, just run for office etc. Anyway:

1. capitol shooter

A 30 second google search would have cleared up any concerns: "Weston's exact motives are unknown, but he has a mental disorder and maintains a strong distrust of the federal government. He remains in a mental institution due to paranoid schizophrenia and has yet to be tried in court."

2. Olympic Park (I assume Centennial Olympic Park bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph of Army of God)

You know I never said that Army of God isn't a problem but compared to the global jihad, it's a relatively small problem. Also Army of God is a single issue terrorist group as far as I can tell. You know how many people have died in TOTAL in anti-abortion related terrorism: 11. Not 11000, 11. You know what all of this means? It means that it would be IRRATIONAL to allocate the exact same quantity of resources to combat AoG as you would Islamic extremism. Resources are limited and AoG members are also US citizens so you can't deport them. The most you could do is bar foreigners seeking to join AoG from US soil and so far there's a total of ZERO trying to do that. Immigration policies would do NOTHING AT ALL to stop AoG.

3. Robert Dear and the Army of God

Same as above.

4. Christian Identity

You're going to have to clarify this one. What's your point?

5. KKK

The KKK is primarily white supremacist rather than Christian. Kind of how communists are primarily about economics rather than atheists. There is absolutely nothing in either Christianity or atheism that mandates Christians hate blacks or that atheists should adopt or not adopt any particular economic ideology. There is however a mandate for world conquest in Islam.

Also the KKK has lost a lot of influence over the years. It's a dying breed and the violence has died down too. Legally it wouldn't exactly be easy to designate it as a terrorist group considering the KKK is actually multiple groups, some violent, some not violent. They're also US citizens, again immigration policies solve nothing. There are no foreigners traveling to the US to join the KKK, it's a purely American thing.

"Even in the thread he was loathe to condemn non Muslim terrorists."

I do condemn them, I'm not just retarded to believe that there is 0 quantitative and qualitative difference between Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism.

Islam is far more dangerous so the idea that we have to treat it all the same and allocate the exact same resources to both is stupid.

There are also animal rights terrorists as well, but nobody actually fears they will fly planes into buildings or try to bomb thousands indiscriminately. It's not the same MO so it doesn't justify the exact same policies and resources to deal with it.

@Mister Spak

You do realize that I consider Bush to be a RINO? I am not at all happy with how the bulk of the Republican party handles Islamic supremacism. Most Republican politicians are just as clueless as 100% of Democrat politicians.

Hence why I support Trump or Cruz. They are not soft on Islam.

@Ivurm

"Anonymous can go join /pol and have a fun time circle jerking to alt right talking points, and leave us normal people alone."

I'm not alt right, I'm the sane right.

Normal? No. You're not normal, you're a far leftist. Leftism is to society what HIV is to the human body, considering both work in the direction of slowly destroying their hosts by breaking down the defenses from within. Hence you defend the supremacist ideology of Islam but demonize anyone speaking against it.

old comment by Mister Spak

Anonymous coward #1930230

"@Mister Spak

You do realize that I consider Bush to be a RINO?"

You do realize that back in the day Dumbya was loudly proclaimed the Best President Ever, unlike Clinton who did nothing to oppose islam?
As each iteration of conservatism fails miserably it is declared liberal, so the next iteration can begin without having the albatrosses of all the previous fails hanging around its neck.

"I am not at all happy with how the bulk of the Republican party handles Islamic supremacism. Most Republican politicians are just as clueless as 100% of Democrat politicians."

And yet Clinton was running an anti-Osama operation out of the White House, independent of whatever the CIA was doing. When Dumbya moved in he gave the budget for that to Ashcroft, for his use in prosecuting Hefner and his bare bunnies. What we have here is not mere cluelessness, it is aggressive willful ignorance that led to 9-11. We had to wait 8 years while Dumbya sat with his thumb up his ass before we got a president who was willing to make the effort to kill bin Laden. Can you guess who that president was? Here I'll give you a hint.
image

Some Democratic politicians are naïve about Islam, but Republics are 100% incompetent at dealing with them. They use Islam as a boogy man to get the gullible sheep riled up and into the voting booth. If they ever made Islam go away there would be no more boogyman, so Republics are motivated to make sure the Islamic threat continues forever, and you voting for Trumpf/Cruz forever. This is why Bush was soft on islam, and why Mein Trumpf/Cruz will also be soft on Islam.

"Hence why I support Trump or Cruz. They are not soft on Islam."

Trumpf and Cruz wish they could do what ISIS is doing hence your support.

4/5/2016 6:33:43 AM

old comment by The Mimic Octopus

"You do realize that I consider Bush to be a RINO?"
When GEORGE W. BUSH is too moderaten for the Republican Party, it is definitively time to disband that organisation hostile to the Constitution.

It might be noted that here in Germany, we have a sizable portion of Turkish Muslims, descendants of immigrant workers from the fifties. Many of them consider themselves both German and Turks. There are at least two Turkish-German in high political position (one of them being one of the leaders of the Hippy-ish party, the other a woman and a member of the Christian Democratic Union). Of course, there are idiots (I even was punched bloody by an infamous Lebanese juvenile diliquent - who, if I remember correctly, was eventually deported - without provocation), but I also had Muslim acquaintances and even friends (and a girl I had a secret long-time crush on) in school, and besides not eating pork, they were no different than any other classmates. Even the Turkish girl who had recently immigrated during my last few years in school integrated very quickly. I could not imagine any of them becoming terrorists. Meanwhile, nowadays, once again, hatemongering rabble-rousers utilise islamophobia, xenophobia and envy towards refugees (sounds familiar) to get disaffected proles to vote for policies that would actually hurt the proles themselves (sounds familiar?) - and they are scarily successful.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117823&Page=3#1929802

As I said on that thread, Nameless Coward: Oklahoma City. Atlanta.

Also, Norway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1O1dvN8lag

image

“I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forcedforced at gunpoint no lessto listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it. I wish it’d happen.”

-Mike Fuckabee

image

White people should integrate into Western society or leave.

Just keep reinforcing the fact that your boyfriend is a member of a terrorist organisation too.

To reinforce what Ivurm says, just as if a 'leftist' would be shouted down by the Donald Fart shillers on 4chan's /pol/, if you subjectively consider FSTDT to be 'biased', of course friendo. Make your own site if you don't like it here.

...and a question, requiring a simple Yes or No answer (PROTIP: We in FSTDT would never rape/beat our wives. Why should we?):

When it comes to teh ebil Muslims - who of course are all terrorists, No Exceptions - should any & all patriotic Americans have absolutely no truck with them...:

image

...or golf cart?

As proved above, the rightists' God-Emperor Ronnie Raygun is an unpatriotic RINO.

As is your boyfriend.

John McCain would like a word with you, concerning the suject of torture; if you're not too cowardly to actually argue the toss with him, that is (the fact you daren't further proves what a coward you & all your ilk really are).

Because - unlike the draft-dodging coward that is your boyfriend Donald Fart (who, unlike Oliver Stone & Bruce Springsteen) has never known how to fight a war - he has a rather unique perspective.

A simple question, Nameless Coward: Is John McCain a RINO?:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/18/donald-trump-john-mccain-vietnam-iowa-republicans

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren’t captured.”

-Donald Fart

Yes or No.

Also is John McCain a war hero? Yes or No.

I can answer those - thus destroying Wiggy's right to think the way he does - extremely easily: No to McCain being a RINO. And 'Yes' to he being a war hero Your turn, NC.

Also, your answer to the question 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does?', which GCHQ, MI6, Scotland Yard, FBI, CIA & NSA can answer extremely easily: No.

I can answer that question 'No' too. Your turn II, NC.

Remember: we in FSTDT have never raped/beaten our wives. Why should we?

old comment by

@Mister Spak

Blah blah blah, you do realize that simply killing the terrorists is not enough if you don't acknowledge their ideological roots and take action accordingly? Others will simply take their place, Osama was pretty much replaced as soon as he died. You need to also combat the ideology. The first rule of warfare is to know your enemy and it's not some vague "violent extremism" (Obama won't even mention the word "Islamic" anymore), it's not caused by "American foreign policy" nor by "poverty" nor by "alienation" (and it wouldn't matter, my grandparents were poor and alienated as fuck and they didn't go around killing people, it's not an excuse), it's due to the imperative within Islamic doctrine to conquer and subjugate non-believers as dhimmis. Until these aspects of Islam are acknowledged, reformed (or contained/suppressed if they cannot be reformed) we will never win the "war on terror".

America acknowledged the ideological roots of WW2. They were not politically correct in naming and shaming Nazism or State Shinto in the case of Japan. After WW2 in fact one term of Japan's surrender was that they abolish State Shinto. There was no outright ban of Shintoism as a personal faith, but Japan was expressly banned from using it in government and the Emperor was forced to declare that he is not in fact divine. Was that "Shintophobic" or was that a rational foreign policy?

@Insult to Rocks

"Islam IS western."

No it isn't. The modern west (i.e. western Europe, Canada, US, Australia) is a creation of Christian and humanist thinkers. Neither Muslims nor Islamic doctrine has any discernible influence on it. If they did, Europe would likely resemble the Middle East more and we all know how well that works out.

How is Islam western? Man you truly are an insult to rocks, a rock would never say something so stupid.

I mean even the more secular minded people in the Islamic world were influenced by the west. Guess who influenced Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey? Secular French philosophers. (And by the way Ataturk wasn't even Muslim, all evidence points towards him being an atheist.)

"What you really want to say is "integrate into white, Anglo-Saxon European culture", which even then is not even remotely monolithic, so forcing people to "integrate" is pointless."

I didn't say it was a monolith, if you got to Germany you adopt German culture. If you go to France, you should adopt French culture etc.

What does being white have to do with anything? Are you one of those bigots of low expectations that think non-whites can't be western and therefore shouldn't be expected to integrate into the society they're moving to? Don't try the race baiting with me because I can turn that around against you very easily. And I'm not a nice rightist, so something like that wouldn't be beneath me. You attack my character, I attack yours tenfold.

@The Mimic Octopus

You do realize that Turkey is one of the more moderate countries BECAUSE they had a secular dictator like Ataturk who CRUSHED all political aspects of Islam and then CRUSHED a small rebellion to restore the caliphate?

So please, don't praise the fruits of someone you would probably despise as an "Islamophobe" if he were still alive today. The only reason you have a sizeable sane Turkish Muslim population is due to a man who wasn't a afraid to be get tough on Islam and contain its political aspects.

Then again there is also a sizable Turkish Muslim population was wants Sharia law, hence why Erdogan can win elections. It's not over yet and Ataturk is long dead so he can't keep the in check anymore.

Can you guess which "Islamophobe" said this:

"For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories [regarding civil and criminal law] of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. This theology of an immoral Arab [presented as Islam] is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God's revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weaklings. No weaklings should rule!"

Hint: not Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller

"envy towards refugees"

Oh that's rich.

At the very least refugees should pay for their accommodations. They don't do that. Why should westerners be forced to pay taxes so these guys can freeload, commit crimes and promote the downfall of the country who gave them shelter?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Mister Spak, Insult to Rocks

Ah, see the cowardly little pigeon flailing around, shitting himself when confronted by facts which prove his pwecious rightist thinking wrong.

The FBI, CIA & NSA would answer the questuion 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does: Yes or No?' with a simple 'No'. As do I.

The FBI, CIA, NSA, yours truly, Mister Spak, Insult to Rocks, and all other commenters in FSTDT have never raped/beaten their wives. Why should we?

Why are you so scared to answer that simple question with a simpler 'Yes' or 'No', little shit-scared Armchair General/Keyboard Warrior cowardly pigeon, Nameless Coward? Aren't you tough enough - like your boyfriend Donald Fart who has never known how to fight a war - to answer with just a 'Yes' or 'No' to that question? My answer: No. Therefore I'm tougher than you, little cowardly pigeon.

To the question 'Is John McCain a RINO?', my answer is No. To the question 'Is John NcCain a war hero?', my answer is Yes. We in FSTDT await your answers. Particularly the latter, considering what your draft-dodging boyfriend Donald Fart said about him.

Remember: how everyone else will perceive you, via your refusal to answer those simple questions with a simpler 'Yes' or 'No'.

We in FSTDT have never raped/beaten our wives. Why should we? The only troll here is you. Certainly your cowardly behaviour proves that.

Your dancing round/avoiding the issue, ignoring questions, anything you say other than answering our questions to our satisfaction? Whatever you say that avoids the facts which proves you & your way of thinking (otherwise you'd answer that question 'Yes' or 'No') wrong: Blah blah blah.

old comment by Mister Spak

Anonymous coward #1930313

During your blah,blah blah didn't you realise that simply killing the terrorists is not enough if you don't acknowledge their ideological roots and take action accordingly? Others will simply take their place. Mein Trumpf/Cruz/Bush boast of the tons of bombs they dump on muslims and the zillions of $ they send to vanish in the desert sands and where are we now?

"You need to also combat the ideology."

Unfortunately this is the same ideology that motivates the Republic base. The first rule of warfare is know your enemy. When you sufficiently know Americas enemies you will find one outpost in the middle east and another in the Republic party. Any strategy that works against the middle east branch will also seriously harm the republic branch. They won't allow this strategy to be used.
This is due to the imperative within conservative doctrine to conquer and subjugate non-believers as "heathens" or "atheists" or secularists" or "nigger without a birth certificate" or
whatever boogyman is popular today. Until these aspects of conservatism are acknowledged, reformed (or contained/suppressed if they cannot be reformed) we will never win the "war on Islam"."

America acknowledged the ideological roots of WW2.

They understood that Japan was an authoritarian culture, and Germany was basically a modern western state. They just had to convince the Emperor and the Japanese will follow,
while the Germans, given half a chance would return to what they were before the war.
They were not politically correct in pounding their chest like an enraged gorilla and yelling "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN".

Instead conservatives rounded up a division of politically correct ideologs
(required to be anti-choice to get the job) to run a country,
like the former ice cream truck operator put in charge of setting up the stock market,
while they set up "democracy" in a country occupied by 2 extremist sects that had been massecuring each other for a thousand years.

Can you explain to us why that project went so far south so fast?

old comment by

@Nameless Coward (Can't you get a freakin' name already?)

"Still making excuses for terrorists and rape gangs"

You mean making excuses for all Muslims BUT those two factions.

"Good job, lefties. Hope you find your spines before you get your heads cut off."

Having a spine is NOT ruthless discrimination and support of some terrible candidates. Having a spine is...

STANDING. UP. FOR. WHAT. IS. RIGHT!

Tell me boy, need we drill that moral into that thick head of yours again?!

You are unwelcome on this site. Stop complaining about the left in a website where friggin everyone supports it. We were here first, and we will keep being here and supporting what we support.

LEAVE THIS WEBSITE AND GO TO SOME OTHER.

You have overstayed your welcome.

old comment by

@Mister Spak

Utter nonsense that isn't even worth replying to.

Do you actually have a valid point or do you just want to troll or make false analogies?

@creativerealms

"I just hate the idea of blaming all Muslims for the actions of extremists"

Whether you acknowledge it or not, moderate Muslims perpetuate the same ideology that inspires the terrorists and Sharia advocates (the problem with Islam isn't actually limited to just terrorism, although obviously that is a major problem nonetheless), so no, I do think that on some level (even if it's 0.0001%) they are morally responsible.

If they find that offensive too bad, instead of getting offended they could do something constructive like, I dunno, leave Islam (the more apostates the better) or work towards a credible reformed Islam that is clearly distinguishable from mainstream Sunni or Shia political Islam and explicitly rejects armed jihad or Sharia as a source of state law.

This isn't even about religion, it's politics. How would you feel if say I supported a book and within that book there was a paragraph credibly calling for the murder of gingers and there were other followers of that book actually going out and killing gingers? Would buy the excuse that "well I follow this book, it's part of my deeply held beliefs, it's not my fault gingers get killed because I don't do that, stop being phobic towards me"?

"I hate the idea if turning Americans against each other and that is pretty much what Cruz and Trump want."

Most Muslims are not American, so I really don't see your point.

Trump's proposal is about immigration, it wouldn't affect Muslim American citizens at all. All it would do is ensure that the Muslim population of the US never goes above 1% (bar some kind of mass conversion which is never going to happen, the current natural trend is towards atheism and irreligion if anything).

Cruz' policy is even more lenient (though without being PC either), he only wants to tackle immigration from countries where terrorist groups control significant portions of the land and he doesn't want to bring any refugees. This seems fair as well. It's not possible to vet these people and ensure their loyalty to the US and the American way of life. And even if they're moderate there is no guarantee their kids will be moderate. You know most of the Muslims causing trouble in Europe or supporting Sharia are young Muslims, they're actually more devout and more radical than their parents.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@#1930402

Precisely.

If he was so secure in his right-wing thinking - which is apprently indestructible, and impervious to Reality - then he wouldn't need to continue with what he's doing now. So why does he have to? Is it merely the fact that FSTDT's existence triggers him? If he wasn't insecure about his pwecious rightist thinking, he wouldn't need to appear here.

As you succintly put it, he - like the Brain Bug at the end of "Starship Troopers", as confirmed by Col Carl Jenkins (Neil Patrick Harris) - is afraid.

But then, why is he? In a previous thread, I asked the simple question of him: if he could confidently confirm that Donald Fart will win later this year, further reinforcing what must be inevitable with the words 'I Guarantee it'?

Strange then, that he couldn't - or daren't - say so, thus confirming your suspicions about him. Coupled with the fact that the only ones who could say 'I Guarantee It' without fear of contradiction being New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath (a few days before Superbowl III), and founder & CEO of Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer.

But then, Wiggy will win later this year. Won't he, NC? If you have absolute faith in your boyfriend, you'd say that. Or are you afraid to...?!

Handwave away, skirt/dance around the issue, or simply ignore us. The fact you're reduced to doing so only confirms what the above commenter says.

So why do you need to appear here? Why so insecure, if you're 'secure' about the absolute indestructibility of your way of thinking, and how it's utterly impossible for it to be wrong in any way, shape or form? Because if it was, then the world would be exactly as you would wish it.

...but I'm afraid that it's not. And that's why - as the esteemed commenter previously confirms - you're afraid.

old comment by

@Anon-e-moose

I'll say this for anyone asking.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination it will only because the Republican establishment is afraid of him and will overlook the popular vote. (Though if Cruz wins there is still hope of turning things around. He's not a bad choice and he is rock solid leadership material. The establishment doesn't like him either.) He has the popular vote, he should be the nomination.

And if he does get the nomination but loses to Clinton or Sanders it will only be due to the propaganda surrounding him (race baiting, gender baiting) and a refusal to seriously examine his policies.

Clinton is an extremely corrupt politician bought by the special interests and Sanders is basically as close to an SJW candidate as you can get, he is totally detached from reality, socialist policies are not going to fix anything and he is simply not leadership material. He's an old weakling who can't even stand up to two activists hijacking his platform.

Literally the only positive aspect of Bernie Sanders is that he's against crony capitalism and shipping jobs overseas to third world dictatorship, the only problem is he's against ALL capitalism. He makes no distinction whatsoever between rich people who have earned their wealth through voluntary trade and rich people who played the system to get rich. There is no way he's going to bring the jobs back from China by implementing socialism, that will only make the US an even less attractive place to start a business and who's going to hire people at 15 bucks an hour if they're not WORTH 15 bucks an hour? It's insane.

old comment by Passerby

Combat the ideology?

So arresting Breivik wasn't good enough and disarming Hutaree would be totaly ineffective, we must wipe out Christianity.

Breaking up the Klan would only be the start, after we burn all their Bibles (thankfully they take care of their own crosses for us) we need to stamp out the racist provocation the right wing insists is free speech.

Shutting down Alpha 66 will have to be followed by dismantling democracy.

The IRA won't truly be defeated until the colonies are returned to British rule.

You want me to go on or are you just going to keep making excuses for why nothing you've given as a reason to go to extremes apply to anything else unless you want it to?

old comment by

@Passerby

Once again you're a liar liar pants on fire. I have provided plenty of quotes putting doubt on Breivik's own supposed Christian beliefs and yet you still insist that he is a fundamentalist Christian, even though he says himself he's not religious, he's more of a cultural Christian. (And his lack of religiosity didn't cause it either by the way in case you think I'm blaming agnosticism or atheism.)

There is nothing to combat here except putting him in jail and throwing away the key. (Although I'd opt for a firing squad as well. Too bad liberal Norway wouldn't consider the death penalty even for mass murder.) He's a lone wolf, he is not part of any larger network that needs to be dismantled. Breivik terrorism begins and ends with Breivik.

The Klan might be Christian, but Christianity does not have a racial doctrine. (This isn't rocket science. Communism is atheistic but atheism isn't inherently pro-communism.) The people who founded Christianity weren't even white to being with so the idea that Christianity is a white supremacist ideology is just insane. You want to combat the KKK? Combat the collectivist mentality that they hold. Racial tribalism has been an issue in human nature with or without religion. (And by the way, the left isn't doing much better either, they criticize white racism but constantly excuse or overlook racism and tribalism coming from blacks. Progressives have utterly failed in creating a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than skin color.)

old comment by

@Passerby

Also you're just fucking wrong.

People have criticized Christianity proportionately when it deserved to be criticized based on its doctrine, no cries of "Christianophobia".

Accurate criticism doesn't mean equal criticism. Different doctrines, different approach and Islam has insanely more moral problems than Christianity while having almost none of the mitigating factors that Christianity has. At least Christianity has some kind of an injunction against murder and the more moderate message of Jesus is seen to supersede the violence of the Old Testament. Islam does not, non-Muslims who neither convert nor pay the jizya tax and become dhimmis are fair game. So are apostates and even Muslims if they engage in certain actions like adultery or "spreading corruption in the land" which is vague as fuck and basically amounts to "being critical of the government" in practice.

old comment by The Great Defender

@Nameless Coward

"Also don't fucking call people "anonymous cowards" when you're not signing up either. Or is it fine when you do it?"

Great point. I would never sink to your level. However, UNLIKE you, I already have an account on this website. I am just using a pseudonym so that you won't attack my comments on other unrelated submissions.

"Once again you're a liar liar pants on fire"

And thus, the Trump lover shows its amazing maturity by using an insult most people haven't heard since they were 8. Great argument man, keep it up!

"People have criticized Christianity proportionately when it deserved to be criticized based on its doctrine, no cries of "Christianophobia". "

Nor are there any cries on banning Christians from the Middle East based on their doctrine.

On another note:

I have visited many extreme right websites. Much like you, I am scared of what they could do to this country after gaining control of it.

The difference between us is that I look at them and laugh, knowing that their wishes will never be fulfilled, and go on my way. At times, if there is a comment that infuriates and horrifies me, I will submit it to FSTDT.

Never do I immediately attack the right-wingers and try arguing with them.

Why do you not do the same? Or are you just a troll trying to take advantage of FSTDT's leniency towards not making accounts?!

old comment by Psycho Tits

"You clear lack any sort of imagination if you think it's a choice between doing next to nothing (what the left and the phony right suggest) andtal war on the Muslim world."

First, what the fuck is with you and your inability to use an alias?

Secondly, you want to elect as president a man who has no business in that office except to vacuum the floor - a man who wants to deport 15 Million persons from the US for their lack of papers. You think he's capable of the political subtlety it would take to differentiate between potential allies and enemies, let alone "crack down" on the right ones. He doesn't. Trump is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. He does not heed counsel. And if you are fool enough to elect him, I have no pity to spare for the horrors America will suffer as a result of having that worm in office.

He could very well help start a true world war, in earnest, and he'll be happy for that accomplishment: But pissing on over a billion people around the world won't 'save the West'; it will create a condition where the front line is everywhere and nowhere, and where these is no demarcation between soldier and civilian.

That is what you will have. You don't believe me.

You will believe me if you're unlucky enough to get what you want.

Beyond this, I have nothing more to say to you. I think you're morally defective, deeply, and beyond reach of reason. There is no point in taking you seriously.

There really isn't. I've followed your other conversations -- and your response to every point, regardless of what, is simply to repeat something you said earlier while claiming it's irrefutable truth and then grinding out about how we should engage in savagery against other human beings not because those particular people are terrorists but because their religion permits terrorism. The Old Testament is filled with horrors as well: People eating their kids, daughters fucking their father, genocide, rape - you name it, the OT has it. Standing the Qur'an and the Bible side-by-side is not false equivalence. They come from the same roots and contain a lot of the same texts of terror.

ETA: People have criticized Christianity proportionately when it deserved to be criticized based on its doctrine, no cries of "Christianophobia".

Really? Where have you been every Christmas for the last 20 years, where certain Christians cry 'persecution' simply because the neutral greeting of "Happy Holidays" simply isn't good enough?

old comment by

@The Not-So-Great Defender

"Nor are there any cries on banning Christians from the Middle East based on their doctrine."

Because no Christians from the Middle East are hijacking planes, bombing hundreds, trying to bomb hundreds and trying to overthrow western structures of government in favor of a totalitarian state.

Who are you afraid of? Middle Eastern Christians don't even have the power or the fortitude of will to stand up to the Islamic supremacists they live with, let alone plan attacks against westerners, not that they would have a reason to anyway or the right ideological foundation for it.

You need to get off the idiotic paradigm of viewing all religions as fundamentally the same. There is a level of militarism in Islam that you simply won't find in other major world religions.

old comment by Passerby

You decrying a collectivist mentality?

Just let me soak this in for second... really bask in the blatantness of how that sounds after talking about everything in mass collectives of Islam and Left.

Until of course you get to anything you *don't* want to look bad. Then you compartmentalize the shit out of it.

Even if you look at terrorists motivated by Christian beliefs as a few hundred here, a few hundred there (nobigdealsostoptalkingaboutthem) that still adds up to the tens of thousands.

For your trying to make racism something that only applies to white people see us tearing down Ayo Kimathi and numerous other black racists. Also a few Model Minority quotes and even one from somebody who actually used Aryan in the proper context.

What you've given us is reasons why YOU don't consider people to be the things they consider themselves and what YOU personally believe to be acceptable doctrine. You denounce the Old Testament - about half the Bible - as being irrelevent to "real" Christians but a more commonly voiced opinion amongst Christians in America would be to declare the New Testament a bunch of liberal claptrap that should be disregarded.

Your opinion does not much matter to them.

Christianity doesn't have a specifically outlined racist doctrine but the Klan still works it in, twisting phrases such as "chosen people" and portraying events such as the curse of Ham to mean what they want. Thing is if you read it with the assumptions they apply to everything you don't even have to add anything to it to make it sound exactly the way they want it to sound. It's all in the interpretation.

Exactly the way you try to give unspoken implications of violence to everything in the Koran. I mean really now you managed to interpret a legal battle as a military one. It's the same for terrorists. They take what's written and spin it to mean something that isn't intended. There are more than a billion Muslims who disagree with the violent take IS pushes just like there are a billion Christians who don't think the Bible promotes violence.

Why is it the majority opinion only gets to decide the "true" doctrine in one of those cases but you alone decide in the other?

Oh right, because you're a hypocrite. A point I think can be demonstrated in a single question.

Would you consider Michael Zahef-Bibeau's attack indicative of a greater scope of threat?

old comment by Psycho Tits

Pew Research estimates 1.6 million Muslims now, and a global Islamic majority by 2050. And yet, oddly, only - yes, I said ONLY - a few thousand people have been killed by a few hundred terrorists. Where are the other billion +? I guarantee this: If Muslims were of one accord, we would not be seeing fairly random attacks by groups of one or several; we'd be facing daily bombings in every country on Earth with a sufficiently large Muslim population. And we, left or right, would be bombing them back - civilian targets on both sides, because neither side would know where the military strength of its enemies is hidden so they would attack and confuse the enemy by burdening them with wounded and with the cost to rebuild damaged infrastructure.

Muslims as a class are not the enemies. Some of them are, because they, even as some of us have, choose a life crushing ideology and are following it to its logical end. Punish moderates from the crimes of radicals, and you'll not stop Islam; you'll simply make radicals out of former moderates.

old comment by

"First, what the fuck is with you and your inability to use an alias?"

LOL! That's your best argument?

"Secondly, you want to elect as president a man who has no business in that office except to vacuum the floor - a man who wants to deport 15 Million persons from the US for their lack of papers."

I hate to break this to you but rules are rules and the number would have never reached 15 million in the first place with a secure border and a zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigration. When you ignore a problem for decades, it only gets exponentially worse and it's time someone put a stop to it. You think Mexico tolerates illegal immigration on its soil? HA! It's actually on the hardest countries to emigrate to legally. They'd send your ass packing if you pulled that on them.

If you want open borders just come out and say it. Be honest and run on a campaign to repeal all immigration laws and allow anyone to come to the US and stay indefinitely regardless if they have a job or a clean criminal record, regardless if they integrate or not, regardless if they respect American society or not etc. Let's see if anyone is going to elect you on that platform. Let's see.

"He could very well help start a true world war, in earnest, and he'll be happy for that accomplishment: But pissing on over a billion people around the world won't 'save the West';"

Or you can have peace through strength. If America is strong both culturally and militarily, few people will inclined to mess with it or its allies and those that do will be swiftly dealt with. If someone is hostile to the US he has only two options: military (not gonna happen since the Islamic world doesn't have a caliphate anymore since 1924 to coordinate a full scale war) or subversion from within (not gonna happen if the US is strong culturally, you can only subvert an enemy that allows itself to be subverted, for example through a misguided sense of tolerance).

When you say "over a billion people around the world" are you referring to Muslims?

Because I can tell you, Muslims are already doing a great job to piss off the non-Muslims. No World War 3 yet so I think there's a lot of alarmism here. The truth is we can have neutral to good relationships with most of these countries (at least to the extent that they behave, the US cannot be expected to remain neutral for example when Iran tries to get a nuclear bomb or when ISIS tries to re-establish the caliphate in order to wage war on Europe and the US) but also keep a certain distance and not allow them to significantly alter the cultures in Europe or the US.

It always baffles me how leftists want America to stay out of the Muslim world but don't equally want the Muslim world to stay out of America (or Europe). Apparently you seem to think they have a right to their cultures but we don't.

I have neutral to good relationships with most of my neighbors, I don't however invite their family to move into my house indefinitely and change the rules. And the suggestion that I somehow owe them this for whatever reason or else I'm a bigot towards them would be insane.

And Trump's immigration policies are no different than what many of these Muslim majority countries already have. There's no Christian or atheist or whatever immigration to Saudi Arabia or UAE or Pakistan or any of these countries, the door is only open for Muslims, they would never allow a mass Christian or mass atheist exodus. Hell, most of these countries won't even take in other Muslim refugees from Syria even though they're in close proximity to Syria and the US is on the other side of the world.

Now sure there are foreign workers, but they STAY foreign, there is no path to citizenship. You work, you leave.

Think about that.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Psycho Tits

"Pew Research estimates 1.6 million Muslims now, and a global Islamic majority by 2050. And yet, oddly, only - yes, I said ONLY - a few thousand people have been killed by a few hundred terrorists. Where are the other billion +? I guarantee this: If Muslims were of one accord, we would not be seeing fairly random attacks by groups of one or several; we'd be facing daily bombings in every country on Earth with a sufficiently large Muslim population."

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=102375

(OP): 'in a democracy, it’s only a matter of time before everyone comes to believe that everything affects them directly'

30 years of the mainly American-funded IRA. Car bombs in London, three bomb scares in my locale.

Muslim immigrants in Hull. Islameist activity here: Zero

image

No planes sticking out of our World Trade Centre.

But apparently, all Muslims are terrorists. No Exceptions. No patriotic American would have any truck...:

image

...or golf cart with them. But then, NC's boyfriend is a member of a terrorist organisation too, thus his hypocrisy; the right-wing Timothy McVeigh & Eric Robert Rudolph in Oklahoma City & Atlanta way before Brussels & ISIS. No Moral Equivalence required. Terrorism is terrorism; Alfred P. Murrah Building, Olympic Park. Rightists = ISIS. No Difference. Therefore all those like NC are terrorists. No Exceptions. [/Broad Brush]

Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does? Yes or No. I say No. As do the West's intelligence services. We in FSTDT have never raped/beaten our wives. Why should we? As per that ISIS defector who decided that he had no right to think the way he did, thus via his supplying the West's intelligence services with that priceless ISIS data, he ensured that the terrorist organisation he was once a member of had no right to privacy. The same thing Donald Fart wanted in his call for a boycott of Apple products for their refusal to give the FBI/CIA/NSA the encryption codes, thus he answering that question 'No'. Even though Wiggy uses an iPhone to Tweet his 'thoughts'.

LOL! That's your best argument for not registering a login, Nameless Coward?

But then, everything you say is crazy talk.

old comment by

@Passerby

"You decrying a collectivist mentality?

Just let me soak this in for second... really bask in the blatantness of how that sounds after talking about everything in mass collectives of Islam and Left."

Well excuse me for pointing out the obvious but both Islamic ideology (regardless of any individual Muslim's devotion to it) and the different brands of socialism are at heart collectivist ideologies. The group matters more than the individual in various ways, for example Islam makes a sharp and unwarranted distinction between man / woman (even to the extent that by default a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's, this isn't a fringe view that Bin Laden made up 20 years ago but a mainstream view in all the major schools of Islamic law) and believer / non-believer (non-believers have to pay the jizya tax and don't have the same rights) and socialism believes that property rights can be greatly interfered with "for the greater (collective) good", not to mention that they promote race/gender/class warfare and call that "equality".

That doesn't however mean that if a million people believe something that's morally and factually wrong they cannot be criticized for it just because there are many of them.

"Even if you look at terrorists motivated by Christian beliefs as a few hundred here, a few hundred there (nobigdealsostoptalkingaboutthem) that still adds up to the tens of thousands."

Yeah I tend to think you'll get that with any population that's in the billions. Still not comparable to the percentages of Muslims that either support armed jihad (about 10%, maybe more in some countries) or at the very least want Sharia law as law of the land (anywhere from a third to a great majority, depending on what country you poll).

"For your trying to make racism something that only applies to white people see us tearing down Ayo Kimathi and numerous other black racists. Also a few Model Minority quotes and even one from somebody who actually used Aryan in the proper context."

Apparently you've never seen a leftist argue that "you can't be racist towards whites" because "racism = power+prejudice" and "non-whites don't have any power".

"What you've given us is reasons why YOU don't consider people to be the things they consider themselves and what YOU personally believe to be acceptable doctrine. You denounce the Old Testament - about half the Bible - as being irrelevent to "real" Christians"

I don't. I'm not religious, I just note that there is no major denomination of Christianity that believes you should follow everything in the Old Testament. And even in the more radical sects like WBC (which only have 100 members at best, mostly family members) you only find some elements of that. Then again WBC isn't a violent group (yet) there is no chance they'll ever implement the death penalty for gays in the US. They can't get elected or start a rebellion. However there is no major school of Islamic thought that has denounced Sharia law or that presents a version of Sharia law that would be even remotely "moderate" by modern standards (i.e. does not include blatant gender discrimination or subjugation of unbelievers as dhimmis who have to pay the jizya tax) And we don't have centuries to wait for a reform.

"but a more commonly voiced opinion amongst Christians in America would be to declare the New Testament a bunch of liberal claptrap that should be disregarded.

Your opinion does not much matter to them."

What? Okay this is just crazy talk.

"Christianity doesn't have a specifically outlined racist doctrine but the Klan still works it in, twisting phrases such as "chosen people" and portraying events such as the curse of Ham to mean what they want."

Okay so you can criticize the vague language of the Bible, you do realize however that the Islamic doctrine of perpetual warfare is pretty explicit? Read Surah 9:29, it is unambiguously a call to subjugate non-Muslims and extract a tribute from them. This is what Muslim leaders have done for centuries while the KKK didn't form for 1850+ years of Christianity and only formed within the context of the USA. Besides the KKK only has a few thousand members today.

This is what I mean, you just keep on ignoring the quantitative and qualitative differences between Islam and Christianity.

old comment by TimeToTurn

I already answered this shit on the quote page. This guy isn't even worth arguing with, he just cherry-picks your responses to him and argues the points that don't totally demolish his argument. Argue with him only if you're bored.

Oh yeah, nice job taking me out of context again in the quote header, even if I suppose that's what everyone thought I said when I said "hypothetically". I also never said "to get information", I said "if it could stop a terrorist attack, and we could somehow know". But whatever, I suppose that's what everyone thought I said and was arguing with me about, now have fun arguing with the random alt-right fascist guy.

old comment by

@Mister Spak

Your analogies are not valid. You've called Cruz, Trump and Bush, all 3 terrorists for supposedly wanting to "bomb Muslims" - isn't true, there's a difference between warfare (which inevitably has civilian casualties) and terrorism, but I shouldn't expect anything even remotely nuanced or rational from someone who probably worships Noam Chomsky (it's a reasonable suspicion given you make the exact same retarded analogies) or some other far left nutjob.

(I mean I don't think too highly of Bush but DAMN SON, he is no terrorist, he just had really bad foreign policies and even then it was Obama who pulled the troops out of Iraq, not Bush, so you can blame Obama's policies that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in Iraq.)

You've said that the Republican base in motivated by the same ideology that the Islamic supremacists are:

"Unfortunately this is the same ideology that motivates the Republic base. The first rule of warfare is know your enemy. When you sufficiently know Americas enemies you will find one outpost in the middle east and another in the Republic party. Any strategy that works against the middle east branch will also seriously harm the republic branch. They won't allow this strategy to be used." - you

This isn't true either and the Republican base is actually split in several sub-ideologies as well, some are social conservatives (not even necessarily motivated by religion and certainly not by Islam), some are corporatists posing as free market capitalists, some are libertarians and some libertarians (Ron Paul for example) are almost indistinguishable from the far left when it comes to US foreign policy because they're isolationists and basically don't think they should be involved in world affairs unless directly attacked, some are free marketers with minimal regulations, some are free marketers, but not when it comes to trading with other countries that don't actually have a free market and constantly cheat, such as China who devalues its currency, dumps cheap subsidized steel on the market and brutalizes its population into servitude being a dictatorship (Trump for example wants a free market inside the US low taxes, low regulations, but doesn't think trading with China is good so he wants a high tariff on goods from China.)

You also said this:

"This is due to the imperative within conservative doctrine to conquer and subjugate non-believers as "heathens" or "atheists" or secularists" or "nigger without a birth certificate" or whatever boogyman is popular today"

That is pretty bizarre (by which I mean is total bullshit). Agree or disagree with the policies, conservatives are running for office rather than trying to subvert the system and I'm sorry but I missed the announcement that Iraq has been annexed to the US, wtf are you talking about? What conquest?? Apparently you're also unaware that some atheists (also blacks) are in fact conservative, so there's that failure on your part too.

Oh and don't get me to make a comparison between the progressive taxation system and dhimmitude. Your steep progressive taxes amount to an extortion tax on the "1%". You never make any distinction between the rich who became rich legitimately and those that gamed the system. Nope, they're all bad, they all hate the poor, let's punish them instead of making real free market reforms that prevent cronyism and exploiting your way to the top.

old comment by The Not-So-Great Defender

@Nameless Coward

Lemme repeat my argument from a previous comment. Don't simply ignore it this time!

I have visited many extreme right websites. Much like you, I am scared of what they could do to this country after gaining control of it.

Never do I immediately attack the right-wingers and try arguing with them.

Why do you not do the same? Or are you just a troll trying to take advantage of FSTDT's leniency towards not making accounts?!

To quote you, "Or is it fine when you do it?"

old comment by Mister Spak

anonymous coward#1930611

@Mister Spak

"Your analogies are not valid. You've called Cruz, Trump and Bush, all 3 terrorists for supposedly wanting to "bomb Muslims" - isn't true, there's a difference between warfare (which inevitably has civilian casualties) and terrorism, but I shouldn't expect anything even remotely nuanced or rational from someone who probably worships Noam Chomsky (it's a reasonable suspicion given you make the exact same retarded analogies) or some other far left nutjob."

Your perception is not valid. You are unable to perceive the similarities in my analogies. You are also unable to perceive facts. I didn't call Bush Trump Cruz terrorists for wanting to bomb muslims - I didn't expect someone who probably worships Ayn Rand to be able to deal with nuance or rationality, and you've met my every expectation.

"(I mean I don't think too highly of Bush but DAMN SON, he is no terrorist, "

No, he's just going to shock and awe those heathens into obeying his every wish.
"he just had really bad foreign policies"

Like signing the cut and run treaty that gets us out of Iraq? Or are you referring to
getting us into Iraq with WMD lies in the first place?

" and even then it was Obama who pulled the troops out of Iraq, not Bush, "

So convenient that Bushs cut and run treaty went into effect after he was out of office.

"so you can blame Obama's policies that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in Iraq.) "

No we can blame Bushs invasion for getting us into Iraq, killing Saddam, sighning the cut and run treaty that allowed ISIS a foothold in Iraq. DAMN SON thats a lot of fail in a little paragraph.

"You've said that the Republican base in motivated by the same ideology that the Islamic supremacists are:

Here's an example of your analogy perception fail.
The republic party says nobody can have an abortion because it's against my religion. Islam says
nobody can have an abortion because it's against my religion. The republic party says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion. Islam says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion .
The christian extremists and muslim extremists hate each other but they want the same things.

" some are corporatists posing as free market capitalists,"

The corporatists have trained the social conservatives to vote for the corporatist party because Jesus wants capital gains tax rates to be low. Corporatists don't care if gays do or don't have rights - rich
gays can buy the rights the fundies won't let them have. The social conservatives are 30 million useful idiots who vote corporatists into power - until Mein Trumpf finds a way to turn the monster they created against them. Then it's time to panic. (but not me - I'm stocking up on popcorn).

" some are libertarians and some libertarians (Ron Paul for example) are almost indistinguishable from the far left Blah blah blah"

But they all put the corporatists into power and pander to the fundies to get the 30 million votes.

"You also said this:

Yes it's bizzare bullshit but this is what has been coming out of the Republic party for 30 years. It's like the Zuckermans made a movie about politics except it's real and has real world concequences - like ISIS.

" Agree or disagree with the policies, conservatives are running for office rather than trying to subvert the system"
Google vote suppression law written by ALEC and passed into law by the Republic party. Also Google number of filibusters by year.

"and I'm sorry but I missed the announcement that Iraq has been annexed to the US, wtf are you talking about? What conquest??"

WTF are you talking about? Is it that defective perception again?

"Apparently you're also unaware that some atheists (also blacks) are in fact conservative, so there's that failure on your part too."

Apparently you're unaware that your reasons for not allowing marriage equality is cut and pasted from
religious propaganda. Everything you offered was blithering idiocy - unless you first assume there is a giant man with a long white beard who lives on clouds. You claim to be an atheist so I assume you don't assume that so you're left with your cutpast blithering idiocy. And black people voting for the bedsheet boy party is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. You've succeeded in making failures failing on top of each other.

"Oh and don't get me to make a comparison between the progressive taxation system and dhimmitude. Your steep progressive taxes amount to an extortion tax on the "1%". You never make any distinction between the rich who became rich legitimately and those that gamed the system. Nope, they're all bad, they all hate the poor, let's punish them instead of making real free market reforms that prevent cronyism and exploiting your way to the top."

If you can't deal with the points I've raised you unfortunately have no choice but to
change the subject or admit defeat.

old comment by

"Here's an example of your analogy perception fail.
The republic party says nobody can have an abortion because it's against my religion. Islam says
nobody can have an abortion because it's against my religion."

There are some who argue that, there are also secular conservatives who argue that it's a human life and the first role of government is to protect human life from being destroyed by others, there are also secular conservatives like me who think it is permissible in the first trimester when the fetus isn't developed enough to feel pain or experience the world in any meaningful way and is therefore not a human being and not within the role of the government to protect such life. I have no interest at all in religious opinions if they can't be articulated on secular grounds.

"The republic party says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion. Islam says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion ."

There is no significant portion of the Republican Party that literally believes "gays can't have rights". All you have is a disagreement over how marriage is defined and many on the libertarian side don't even believe government should be involved in marriage at all. Gays aren't rounded up and thrown from the rooftops for being gay, in fact there is no better place to be gay in the world than in America, and yes I do mean better than Europe too. Europe's massive importation of Muslim immigrants and refugees is going to create an increasingly hostile climate for gays to go about their daily business. (Also a hostile climate against Jews, many of which are already leaving Europe. Good job, EU, NOT!)

How is the Republican Party taking away their rights? I missed the announcement that murder is now legal if the target is gay, I missed the mass confiscations of property, the abolition of voting if you're gay etc. So this all comes to down a single issue that isn't even as clear as you think. Gay marriage is not a straight forward issue because the legal concept of marriage is a combination of positive rights and negative rights. (Do you know the difference?) It's even more muddy if you promote it internationally, I mean you're basically saying the taxpayer has to subsidize two people fucking (marriage does often come with tax breaks, housing benefits, health benefits etc.) none of these things are actual negative rights, they require other people to do stuff for you. The most you can do in a free society is to oppose coercion (for example anti-sodomy laws, totally unjustified), you cannot however force the rest of society to actively support gay relations if they don't want to or they have no reason to (like I don't, I don't want friendship registrations+benefits either, why would I want to pay for two people to be friends when they can just as easily do it on their own?). At the very least this is best left to local communities rather than being bureaucratically decided by activist judges who invent rights that don't actually exist. True rights precede government, so the idea that government grants rights is absurd. They're privileges not actual rights.

Plenty of valid alternatives have been proposed but you just keep ignoring them. I'd recommend googling Ben Shapiro's views on the matter, he explains it in a way that doesn't rely on religious arguments.

"The christian extremists and muslim extremists hate each other but they want the same things. "

No they don't and as much as I'd love to respond to all your post and pointing out how you repeatedly ignore both quantitative and qualitative differences between the two religions, I have better things to do and limited time. Figure it out what I would have responded.

old comment by creativerealms

Can you give an example of the daily lives of gays and Jews being disrupted in Europe due to Muslim immigrants or do all you have are terrorist attacks. As much as you want to believe that Muslims are slowly taking over Europe and that Sharia no go ones are popping up all other the continent of Europe it's just not happening. Except in the minds of American republicans who don't know what they are talking about.

Now yes Gays do have it better in America then in middle eastern countries when has anyone said otherwise? But that's not for a lack of Christians attempts. Many Christians would like nothing more then to kill all gays and I'm not even talking about the likes of WBC or James David Manning. I don't want America to be a Christian theocracy any more then I want it to be as Islamic one. I want it to be a secular country where religions do not influence the government and the government does not influence religion. In America it's not the Islamic that are trying to make their religion the basis for law. It's Christians.

It's not Muslims erecting their laws on government property, it's not under Allah that was added to the Pledge in the fifties, it's not in Allah we trust that was added onto our money. It's not the Muslims who slowly took over the republican party and made it backwards on science, education, and healthcare. No it was Christians. There is no fear of creeping sharia in America as Creeping Christian law is too ingrained.

Now you can fear Muslims sneaking into Mexico and then those Muslims pretending to be Mexicans sneaking into America but I prefer to focus on real problems. Not the problem I just made up. Hahahahahaha.

I like you nameless, can you please sign in or at least use a user name. Sure I'm a centrist who believes that America has two right wing parties (Hilary Clinton would make a great 1980's republican.) and you are a far right conservative who thinks Bush is a liberal but I like you. You make this place fun.

Please tell me how the Muslims are making Europe a hellhole for Jews and gays and how the no fear of mass shootings is a bad thing. I would love to hear those things.

Oh and I would love if the government got out of Marriage but no Christian wants that. They want their marriage rights and privileges. They just don't want gays to marry. Hell I would be happy with civil unions for gays but Christians and most republicans don't even want that.

old comment by Mister Spak

anoymouse coward#1930735

"There are some who argue that, there are also secular conservatives who argue that it's a human life and the first role of government is to protect human life from being destroyed by others,"

Funny then how all the anti choice opinions come from religious sources based on religious premises.
If such conservatives exist they are a flea on the religion dog. It's religion that drives the anti choice movement.

" there are also secular conservatives like me who think it is permissible in the first trimester when the fetus isn't developed enough to feel pain or experience the world in any meaningful way and is therefore not a human being and not within the role of the government to protect such life. I have no interest at all in religious opinions if they can't be articulated on secular grounds. "

And yet you copypaste from religious propaganda on the subject of gay rights. I wonder if you'll be any different regarding abortion.

"The republic party says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion. Islam says gays can't have rights because it's against my religion ."

"There is no significant portion of the Republican Party that literally believes "gays can't have rights". All you have is a disagreement over how marriage is defined"

You can't adopt because jesus/you can't get married
because Jesus/You can't file joint tax returns because Jesus/you can't inherit according to the tax code because Jesus(I see you didn't look up that SCOTUS decision as I suggested.)
And that's the legal lack of rights that conservatives have so far been able to retain in the current liberal society.(as of 2015 for current continuing persecution see North Carolina and Mississippi) I wasn't born yesterday. I know what conservatives were saying when gay was still illegal.

"and many on the libertarian side don't even believe government should be involved in marriage at all."

Libertarians are a flea on the conservative dog. Their opinions have no effect on Republic party policy debates.

"Gays aren't rounded up and thrown from the rooftops for being gay, in fact there is no better place to be gay in the world than in America,"

Yeah, liberalism has poisoned American society with gay rights. Or so I read on right wing websites.

" and yes I do mean better than Europe too. Europe's massive importation of Muslim immigrants and refugees is going to create an increasingly hostile climate for gays to go about their daily business. (Also a hostile climate against Jews, many of which are already leaving Europe. Good job, EU, NOT!)"

Next up - The jew-hating right wing parties vs the jew-hating muslim immigrants. I hope my Republic
convention popcorn supply holds out.

"How is the Republican Party taking away their rights? I missed the announcement that murder is now legal if the target is gay, I missed the mass confiscations of property, the abolition of voting if you're gay etc."

It's that liberal contamination of Christian American culture. "Politically correct liberal activist judges"
make the constitution apply to gays when the founding fathers clearly didn't orginally intend it.

"So this all comes to down a single issue that isn't even as clear as you think"

It's not a single issue. You clearly are not clear in your thinking.

" Gay marriage is not a straight forward issue because the legal concept of marriage is a combination of positive rights and negative rights. (Do you know the difference?) "

It is if your guidance comes from the giant man with a long white beard who lives on clouds.
Which you seem to, given your history of copypaste from religious propaganda.
Positive and negative rights is just a way of confusing people who refuse to accept the commands of the giant beard cloud man.

"It's even more muddy if you promote it internationally, I mean you're basically saying the taxpayer has to subsidize two people fucking (marriage does often come with tax breaks, housing benefits, health benefits etc.) none of these things are actual negative rights, they require other people to do stuff for you."

Then you can keep saying there should be no laws regarding marriage, and see how far that gets you with Cruz(or any other plausible Republic president) in the White House.

" The most you can do in a free society is to oppose coercion (for example anti-sodomy laws, totally unjustified), you cannot however force the rest of society to actively support gay relations if they don't want to or they have no reason to (like I don't, I don't want friendship registrations+benefits either, why would I want to pay for two people to be friends when they can just as easily do it on their own?)."

Then you should be very happy with the SCOTUS decision, argued for by liberals, that have the Conservative movement in a rage.

" At the very least this is best left to local communities rather than being bureaucratically decided by activist judges who invent rights that don't actually exist."

Like the right to commit sodomy in your own bedroom? That was affirmed by Lawrence verses Texas?
Saying anti sodomy laws are totally unjustified?
Condemned by the Republic party as judicial activists inventing rights?

" True rights precede government, so the idea that government grants rights is absurd. They're privileges not actual rights."

There are no true rights. The concept is a social concept of western society. It's not like gravity or energy that exists without anyone to understand it, it's an agreement between people in a society
on how to run their society. It has no more real world physical reality than Catholic theology.

"Plenty of valid alternatives have been proposed but you just keep ignoring them."

I've seen this nonsense a hundred times before. It doesn't make any more sense when you say it.

"I'd recommend googling Ben Shapiro's views on the matter, he explains it in a way that doesn't rely on religious arguments."

He copypasted the religious propaganda re evolution, so I'm not optimistic it will be any better on gay rights.

"The christian extremists and muslim extremists hate each other but they want the same things. "

"Figure it out what I would have responded."

I've been doing that all along. That's why you're so butthurt. I know what you're going to say before you post it.
I've already seen all the copypaste from the religious websites.

old comment by

@The Not-So-Great Defender

You're making a lot of assumptions there about me that aren't true. In order to respond it needs to be a comment worth responding to. I don't really care whether or not you want to go to right-wing sites and challenge them there directly. Your call.

@Spak

"Funny then how all the anti choice opinions come from religious sources based on religious premises. If such conservatives exist they are a flea on the religion dog. It's religion that drives the anti choice movement."

It's both and while I would agree there isn't anything to support the idea that "life begins at the moment of conception", just the same, it is medically and scientifically unsound to suggest that an 8 month 29 days (well it's not a fixed term, but you get the idea, basically mere moments before birth) is somehow not a human being and doesn't deserve rights despite being able to feel pain and experience on some level the world around them, and then *POOF* 9 months 1 second it's a human.

The idea that life begins exactly at conception is just as misguided and unfounded as the idea that life begins 9 months after conception and not a moment sooner.

For you to paint this position as a "religious" is a blatant lie.

"You can't adopt because jesus/you can't get married"

Adoption isn't a right. Single straight people can't easily adopt either if at all. Speaking as a single I don't consider that to be either "singlephobic" or infringing on my rights. It is entirely reasonable that the state be selective about people trying to adopt children. These aren't YOUR children, or as Obama would say "you didn't build that". Follow your leader LOL! You can demand the right to be a parent when you can have children of your own and provided you don't abuse them. You are not entitled to other people's children by default just because they're dead or in jail (or otherwise can't take care of them anymore).

"because Jesus/You can't file joint tax returns because Jesus/"

Me and my non-gay non-lover friend Bob can't either. Your point?

Why do you believe you are entitled to pay taxes differently than everyone else?

"you can't inherit according to the tax code because Jesus(I see you didn't look up that SCOTUS decision as I suggested.)"

That might actually be a valid concern. But then again it would also apply to my friend Bob.

I think inheritance should be a free for all, no exceptions. You should be able to give it to anyone for any reason. I don't care if it's your gay lover, friend or the hobo down the street. The idea that this requires redefining marriage is stupid though.

"It's that liberal contamination of Christian American culture. "Politically correct liberal activist judges" make the constitution apply to gays when the founding fathers clearly didn't orginally intend it."

Do you believe that the founding fathers intended that marriage be redefined from male+female to person+person?

Also, why not 3 or more people? Why not a whole town? Why not siblings? Why not American+foreigner seeking to get a green card but who don't really love or even know each other, this one is actually a criminal offense too.

"Positive and negative rights is just a way of confusing people who refuse to accept the commands of the giant beard cloud man."

No it's not, and it's not confusing unless you have a single digit IQ.

Negative rights - things that other people or the government cannot do to you (this is where the right to life or property come in, they can't murder you, assault you or steal your shit)
Positive rights - things that other people/government owe you (this would include universal healthcare, but would also include more radical concepts if you remember those Sluthate forum members arguing that the government should basically give free hookers to men who can't get laid)

Where do you draw the line exactly? Unchecked expansion of positive rights is a sure path to tyranny.

Again you lie so I will stop here for now.

old comment by The Not-So-Great Defender

@Coward

"You're making a lot of assumptions there about me that aren't true."

You just said the reason you are here and not leaving is because you are afraid of what left wingers could do to the U.S.

I responded by saying I feel the same way about right-wingers, but don't start flamewars with them on their sites.

You responded by saying that I am making assumptions about something you just said yourself.

Ain't it cute how you cherry-pick the parts of the comments that you can argue against, but don't respond to the comment as whole?

I'll say it now and say it again: YOU HAVE OVERSTAYED YOUR WELCOME.

This website is about mocking religious stupidity, not getting into political debates.

What the hell are you trying to achieve here by arguing with us? Do you have the "WAAAH! I'm wight and you'we wong!" mentality?

This argument isn't about Trump or his supporters anymore. This argument is why you won't give up annoying us incessantly and taking away all the fun that FSTDT gives us.

Accept that and either stay here but act like a normal commentator, or leave and go to some right wing site.

If you can't take the fact that there are people different from you in this world, fine. But don't think that gives you special privileges to fight them.

LEAVE. THIS. SITE

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

"it's a left-wing propaganda site"

...just as 4chan's /pol/ is a right-wing propaganda site; particularly of late, with all the Donald Fart shillers there.

FSTDT being left-wing, according to your subjective 'opinion'. Of course, friendo. Make your own site, if you don't like it here.

Your boyfriend has been [i]fundie[/i] enough plenty of times. Otherwise quotes by him wouldn't have been included after being submitted.

And not just quotes by Donald Fart, neither.

If - as per Quakers/Unitarian Universalists, relative to that said many times by David J. Stewart/Andy Schaftafly - Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were to say something unjustifiable, then that would be quoted here too. I hereby challenge you to find just one quote by a Quaker or Unitarian Universalist on this site. Ergo...!

Being Politically fundie. As said so many times by others when certain quotes' inclusion have been questioned for their 'fundieness', certainly it's source: "Read the FAQ".

Something which you clearly haven't Or daren't, for fear of your justifications for your presence here being destroyed; certainly your right to be here, other than, as others here have suspected: nothing more than trolling. Therefore anything you say is immediately invalidated. After all: does ISIS have the right to think the way it does?* Yes or No. I say No. As does the West's security services

FSTDT. It's not just about the religious.

*- We in FSTDT have never raped/beaten our wives. Why should we? 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does? Yes or No. It's not a 'Loaded' Question' when I - and the West's security services - can answer that with the simpler 'No'. So what's your excuse, other than handwaving it away, or ignoring the question?

@creativerealms

"Please make an account nameless"

What's stopping him? His boyfriend Donald Fart answered the above question 'No', when - via his call for a boycott of Apple products for their refusal to give the FBI/CIA/NSA the encryption codes so as to deny ISIS their right to 'privacy' - he demanded the same. He has nothing to hide. I don't, neither. I have a registered login.

But then, Nameless isn't the Coward he is for nothing. What does he have to hide? I refer you to the hypocrisy of his boyfriend - despite his call for a boycott of Apple's products - still using an iPhone to Tweet his 'thoughts'.

Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does? Yes or No. That ISIS defector answered that extremely easily: No, by he supplying the West's security services with that priceless ISIS data, thus denying their right to privacy.

What does Nameless have to hide? He still won't answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the notion of a deadly terrorist organisation having the right to privacy, to spread the way they think. That ISIS defector answered No. As does the West's security services. I answer No.

But then, considering his boyfriend is a proven member of a terrorist organisation too, therefore...!

Funny how NC has never tried to dispute the fact that his boyfriend has been exposed as a member of the KKK: A terrorist organisation, so that goes some way to explain why he won't register a login. Or daren't...! [/W.A.R.]

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

"conservative politics neither being nor end with Trump"

...but considering the fallout after that night in late 2012, it seems that it will with Donald Fart.

Because nobody likes a sore loser.* Romney had to concede defeat to Obama, so why can't the likes of you do the same should your boyfriend not be nominated? Those UKRAP/National Front voters didn't threaten to riot, should Karl Turner be re-elected last year; he being returned to Parliament with an increased majority, so that alone proves the Donald Fart supporters to be nothing more than immature butthurt manchildren who'll stamp their widdle feet if they don't get their way. Instead of accepting the inevitable: like normal, sane, well-adjusted mature adults.

Anything else than Dealing With It, and realising that right-wing thinking has FAILed - otherwise the world would be exactly as you would wish it, and we wouldn't be having this conversation - will ultimately prove we, who you define as 'Leftists', right.

*- From that thread:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117942&Page=1#1930775

@Dark_Lord_Prime

'Am I the only one who's starting to see this whole thing with Trump and the GOP in general as a slow-motion implosion?'

Certainly since that night in late 2012. A couple of quotes from that aftermath are germane:

'Stop being the stupid party!'

-Bobby Jindal, to his fellow Repubicans

'The world is laughing at us'

-Donald Fart

Immature adults reacting the way you are, Nameless Coward. As you are on this very site?

image image

Sides, this is Houston. You are go for launch.

old comment by Mister Spak

Anonymous coward #1930778

Funny how your opinion on abortion comes from lies told by the peoples information ministry.
" it is medically and scientifically unsound to suggest that an 8 month 29 days . . . is somehow not a human being and doesn't deserve rights "

Nobody is suggesting this, except religious propaganda, and you.

To anti-choice activists, a 8 month 29 day abortion is an equally horrifying baby murder as
murdering a dot-baby. Their standard propaganda phrase is "Roe v Wade
allows abortion on demand from conception up to 9 months for any reason"

Your statement about medically and scientifically unsound is nonsense. Nobody ever said this except
the peoples information ministry. It is religious propaganda,
and you were gullible enough to believe it, while remaining unaware of the fact-based pro-choice positions.

Alternatively, there is the possibility that I mentioned earlier, that you are in fact a fundie.
Your "atheist" opinions look more like the strawman that theists imagine an atheist is,
in addition to your "atheist" objections to marriage equality being copypaste from religious websites.
Even after I pointed this out, you seemed unable adapt your deception tactics, continuing to
provide nothing but copypasta, as if the only thing you were aware of was religious propaganda.

Everything you posted is just like this. It has no basis in fact, but is full of religious lies,
presuppositions and logical fallacies. You appear to never have done any independent thought
about these issues.

This is why you look like a fool every time you post.

@creativerealms

"I'm done. I will be ignoring nameless from now on since reason fails. "

But that's a mistake. With fundies, reason fails before it even starts. Ignoring them means they get to advance their cause without opposition. This is why we got Reagan and Bush and now Trump - because the idiots kept pushing and Americans ignored the idiots.

old comment by NonProphet

Dear Anonymous Coward:

If you think that any legal marriage other than one-man-one-woman is "redefining marriage," then you must ignore nearly all of human history until the last 150 years or so.
Throughout the majority of history across all cultures, marriage has been most commonly defined as "one man and as many women as he can afford to own." (Female consent in the matter is a fairly new idea.)
But even so, same-sex legal unions equal to hetero ones have existed in many societies. Native American tribes, ancient China, and ancient Greece (Spartans ring a bell?) all had same-sex unions that conferred the same standing as straight ones. All under the definition of "marriage."
Also, it might help if you stopped using special pleading ("gay marriage is just a license to fuck but straight marriage isn't") and false equivalence (gay marriage=friends filing joint taxes). Besides, all of your arguments were already used in the 60s against interracial marriage.

Your willful ignorance is pathetic, and your fascist leanings make me glad that you're just part of the lunatic fringe.

Oh, one last thing: Dominionism is part of Christianity, as is forceful conversion of non-believers. The percentage of Christians trying to establish a theocracy is roughly equal to Muslims doing the same. Millions of Muslims denounce terrorism & forced Sharia. Plugging your ears & ignoring reality doesn't make your conspiracy theories true.

old comment by Psycho Tits

@ Anon - Part I

I said I wasn't going to speak more to you, but this requires a response for several reasons one of which is to give you benefit of the doubt. I’ll drop all name-calling and debate fun and will prove why some of these ideas are wrong:

”LOL! That's your best argument?”

My first comment use a fucking alias, would you - was not an argument at all.

”I hate to break this to you but rules are rules and the number would have never reached 15 million in the first place with a secure border and a zero-tolerance policy for illegal immigration. When you ignore a problem for decades, it only gets exponentially worse and it's time someone put a stop to it. “

Rules are rules, eh?

Before talking about your comment, I’ll throw in what at first seems to be a non-sequitur (but you’ll see how it ties in soon enough):

The US/UK led wars in Iraq were illegal. (To be fair, you may have opposed the war. If not, however, then why was it okay for your nation to break rules and ignore international contracts the US had ratified in the past?)

The Lancet, a venerable medical journal out of the UK, determined by survey that there were 601 027 violent civilian deaths of Iraqi persons as a result of these wars. They were collateral damage,’ I suppose; in the wrong place at the wrong time when war came to their door and military groups turned their eyes to urban centres.

“The research team from the University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University, Simon Fraser University and Mustansiriya University conducted the work on a volunteer basis using pooled internal resources instead of seeking outside funds.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html)

Their count: Over 500 000 civilian dead by 2013.

Iraq was a secularized state led by a secularized mad-man.

Now it’s a DAESH recruitment tool.

On the topic of tolerance for illegal immigration, this has been permitted so long for its usefulness to US citizens. Picking up illegal immigrants provides an economic boon to those seeking cheap labor - tractable labor afraid to decry dangerous working conditions for fear of being exposed. This cheap labor has cross-sector benefit:
https://www.wmich.edu/hhs/newsletters_journals/jssw_institutional/individual_subscribers/39.4.Becerra.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

There are more like this - many, many more.

If Trump were serious about ending illegal immigration, the first thing he should do (but won’t) and long before the endless, costly, brutal program of trying to evict 15 million persons from where they live around the US is to propose legislation that would lead to heavily fining organizations found to be deliberately using the services of undocumented persons.

Instead, he adopts a policy that can be summed up in the following way: 'Okay, let's get rid of non-citizens working under the table. There are 15 million of them. To find them we require sweeping new police powers, to collect them we require holding facilities, and to keep them out we would require a heavily manned wall unlike anything that exists now.’

How much will all of that cost a nation that has already spent, according to researchers at Brown University, $4.4 Trillion over the last 15 years? (SOURCE: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic)

The US Treasury has a bottom, and the country is suspended just above the bottom being held up by ropes to grow weaker every day. And other countries China comes to mind are in similar straits for somewhat different reasons.

A nation already suffering to pay the cost of ill-conceived wars is going to get the money for “cracking down on illegals,” where, again? And that isn't even touching on the human dimension: Forced migrations have occurred time and time again through history - all history, including modern history - and they have always been accompanied by atrocities. (You might argue those atrocities are deterrents, but they are not. Instead, you'll end up with militant Mexicans who perceive what their families and friends endured as acts of cruelty and it is within their culture to retaliate.)

The following, from a questionable site, is the boldest of such promises. I assure you, however, that what people in this article said in public is likely a lot more common a feeling in private.
(http://newamericamedia.org/2010/04/mexico-warns-of-retaliation-for-new-arizona-law.php)

So far, then, America is in massive debt. One of the unfortunate ways of lowering the cost of goods, especially in a society suffering economic uncertainty, is (and always has been) to employ slave labor which, if you look at the documentation straight on and without any effort to splash your political beliefs across it for color, means that US companies (and individuals; those who “hire” au pairs and pay them nothing but room and board) are benefiting from something so close to slave labor that in some situations it’s a distinction without a difference.

So the Trump card, simply put, is to throw a whole lot of money US citizens do not have into several separate and equally destructive enterprises: Mass deportation an act that would soon turn into something far worse not necessarily because of Trump alone but because of human nature and ongoing war where the target is not extremism of every sort but rather extremism among Muslims. But he’ll do so in a way that would alienate Western Muslims who are assimilated (and, like assimilated Christians and Jews, still remain faithful to the basic tenets of their religion). If you could be troubles just to look, you will find so many moderate Muslims decrying terrorism and what more can they do than that? It’s doubtful many of these Westernized Muslims have actually conversed closely enough with a would-be terrorist to learn anything about his or her plans.

(Note: Osama Bin Laden, whom so many American soldiers died in part to catch, was found and killed not in Iraq where I doubt he ever hid out but in Pakistan.)

old comment by Psycho Tits

@ Anon - Part II

Uh, no, I’ve never supported open borders. I don’t support the system that permitted 15 million souls to cross the US border illegally, turning a blind eye, because the immigrants are cheap labor. Worse: They are expendable labor. (Who would miss an illegal immigrant killed in a workplace accident?)

Offer conditional amnesty to persons in the United States illegally: They’d have to pass certain checks and be willing to take citizenship classes and, if necessary, classes in English as well. The baddies the human traffickers and so on won’t be signing up; they’re known and they’d have nothing to do with a naturalization program. That means, in practical terms, that it would be easier to catch dangerous illegals simply because they do not have correct documentation.

Other ideas might involve guest worker status: They then pay income tax, among other things, and they’re not citizens but can apply for citizenship.

I don’t think a blanket amnesty would be smart in the least, nor open borders. The opposite extreme is just as bad, however, if not worse.

Or you can have peace through strength. If America is strong both culturally and militarily, few people will inclined to mess with it or its allies and those that do will be swiftly dealt with.

...because that ideology worked out so well in the desert wars. In Afghanistan and Iraq and all across the East, million-dollar vehicles are being turned into burnt out wreckage by roadside bombs that cost maybe five bucks to make. I, and anyone else with even a little training beyond high school chemistry, could make not only an IED but also a chemical explosive capable of releasing mustard gas or chlorine gas. So could you. The same goes for the creation of a “dirty bomb” a conventional explosive wherein some of the shrapnel is irradiated: Anyone, including you, me, and most of the posters here, could build such a weapon. I certainly won’t detail how, but it’s simple enough.

The physical outcome would look pretty much the same as if a non-dirty bomb’ had been tripped, but public terror you know, that thing TERRORISTS want would be ramped up to 11 because of the irradiated shrapnel.

The last thing this world needs is more terrorists. Trumps ideas on foreign policy would recruit them. I mean, fuck the DAESH recruitment machine: Any English-speaking Muslim on the planet can just turn on the news and listen to a potential political front-runner (who wants top office in a militarily strong nation) to know where he stands regarding the whole of Islam.

The truth, though, is that Muslims under DAESH are no happier about their loss of freedom than we would be:
Muslim Raqia Hassan, age 30, educated at the University of Aleppo, was killed by DAESH because she condemned how they treated women (among other complaints): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ruqia-hassan-isis-executes-first-female-citizen-journalist-in-raqqa-confirmed-by-raqqa-is-being-a6797036.html
Ex-wife of one of the DAESH leaders expresses a similar sentiment: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/europe/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-isis-ex-wife-interview/

There are so many more of these writings, blogs, videos of moderate Muslims claiming, even as do moderate Christians, that want to live peaceably with their neighbors. Fundamentalist Christians don’t want that, however; they want a Christian variant of theocracy and they openly admit it. (Look up the Chalcedon Foundation and follow the rabbit trail from there. They use stealth politics, rather than honest dialogue, to secure power for their people. And those people are avowed theocrats who hate everything from “government schools” to public healthcare. I guess making their neighbors beg for basic services is their idea of hospitality.)

old comment by Psycho Tits

@ Anon Part III [tl;dr...maybe - but anon should get a good answer]

Pew Research found that about 71% of the 300 million people in the US identify as Christian.

To the theonomists, you are either for them or you’re their enemy. No middle ground. At all. Abortion doctor killer Paul Hill appealed for support from theonomist Gary North. North IGNORED Hill’s initial violent letter and only answered Hill, condemning the man not for murder. but for killing extra-judicially. (http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html) Poke around the rest of that site and you’ll see a group, affiliated with operatives high in Libertarian circles and in the Republican party. I assure you, they have their own variant of Shari’a, and not at all above manipulating international politics in service to their religious pretensions.

Look what they did to Uganda: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

It is not false equivalence to compare our crazies to theirs: Christian terrorism does exist. It doesn’t matter whether or not the body-count is lower. They are willing to kill and they’re willing to kill LOTS in service to their goal of a truly Christian nation.’

Back to Islam: Moderate Muslims 0 deeply religious and politically more neutral - up for Western values. Their voices are being ignored: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

DAESH has basically declared war on the world.
We have options: We bring all of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies into line with certain recommendations for how to better pass information back and forth. (There is a serious problem with information being bottlenecked by some agencies.)

If someone is hostile to the US he has only two options: military ...[snipped for space]...if the US is strong culturally, you can only subvert an enemy that allows itself to be subverted, for example though a misguided sense of tolerance).

Majority Muslim nations have already been to war against Western forces. They didn’t need orders from a Caliph to set things in motion.

You mean they could never mount a successful military campaign against the United States and you’re RIGHT: There are too many differing beliefs, political, social, and religious, for the various factions of Islam to rise up as one and begin a mission of conquest. There are over a billion of them, but they come from every part of the world incorporating the beliefs of their societies and adapting and so what they want would differ from area to area and even from Muslim to Muslim.

If Islam is itself the underlying problem, then how is it that the vast majority of over a billion people have NOT participated in terrorist activities? How is it that there appear to be orders of magnitude more moderates than there are fanatics? As I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t take a big group or even a little one for somebody to create and plant bombs...so why haven’t at least a few hundred thousand Muslims come out of the woodwork and started hitting random Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Australians with a barrage of IEDs?

A few Muslims got together including Osama Bin Laden, who had once fought for the United States and against communist incursion in Afghanistan and developed a terrible plot. Over 3000 people died. Further terror attacks in Paris, in Brussels, in London have killed many hundreds more. That’s what happens when a loose connection of fanatics a few thousand strong set their differences aside for five seconds in an effort to terrorize those whom they characterize as invaders.
The fact there are relatively few of these people when compared to the size of the Islamic world is evidence in itself that Muslims are not monolithic. I went to a small peace conference yesterday and learned two things you may find of interest: 1) There are 73 variants of Islam currently recognized. 2) A member of the mosque where we met was “martyred” (that is the term the Muslim woman who told me this used) by a fanatical Muslim who believed the man he killed was kafir an apostate.

Moderate Muslims are in as much danger from their radical fringe as we are. We must fight the radicals, AND understand why moderate Muslims are fearful of taking these steps. They and their families would be in danger. They would help us, I think, if they believed we would attempt to protect them from the wroth they incur from their crazies - but, thanks to the loud-mouths we in the West are allowing to speak for us, those Muslims who might otherwise speak can no more depend on us for help than they can on the people hunting them.

Why alienate moderates who dislike DAESH even more than you do? In one sense, it doesn’t matter what the Qur’an or the Hadiths say so much as it matters how the billion plus Muslims who are NOT terrorists view their faith: Their views are as diverse as those of Christians, who make up a global religious majority slightly larger than Islam.

But if the people around them begin to treat them as suspects, threaten to brutalize their families, and drop bombs on allegedly military targets that are surrounded by civilians by members of their families; by victims of all ages then they just might begin to coalesce into a terrifying global threat. The fact they have Islam in common would be of less importance at that point than the belief their neighbors are planning genocide. They will do what you would do in such a situation: They would defend themselves, putting aside usually major differences to assert that they will not be killed off like roaches.

Just because Trump has a big mouth from which he spews those things that reside in the darkness of every human heart just because he plays on fear, and promises prosperity in its place that does not mean he is fit to govern. He isn’t. Neither party wants to associate with him. He’s too radical for their liking and worse: He is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. He has zero experience in international affairs or planning wars or rebuilding a national treasury. Although his personal wealth is impressive, his record when it comes to running companies is NOT. He’s a demagogue who does not listen.

...and if you help elect him, and some of his policies come to negatively affect you, he won’t hear you either. If he wins, you will not get the security you want. You’ll get a disaster.

People HERE have suggested US torture terrorists’ families? Should the US hold people forever without trial or try people secretly?

No such acts would preserve Western culture: Morale among a people where kids are taught young that the US “experiment in freedom” has succeeded and without their government having to compromise deeply held beliefs (such as the presumption of innocence, the belief the child is not responsible for crimes of the parent, and the idea that individuals should not be judged for their membership in a specific race or religion.)

How many of your beliefs are you willing to give up, and how much freedom would allow the US government to limit, in service to fear?

old comment by

@Psycho Tits

"@ Anon Part III [tl;dr...maybe - but anon should get a good answer]

Pew Research found that about 71% of the 300 million people in the US identify as Christian.

Even assuming that is true, how far are they actually getting? Not very.

"It doesn’t matter whether or not the body-count is lower."

Which by definition is admitting to being incapable of thinking nuanced. It's like saying "I acknowledge is a quantitative and qualitative difference paper cuts and gaping wounds, yet I'm going to medically treat them equally and dedicate an equal amount of resources to deal with both because of some low chance the paper cut MIGHT get infected with some superbug that MIGHT kill the host."

That's not being rational at all. Seriously, you go to the ER every time you get a small cut on your finger?

Anyway, TLDR, rather than waste my time replying to stupid (only to be ignored and have the same points repeated in my face), I'd rather go watch porn or whatever, much more productive for me.

Read Robert Spencer instead by the way.

old comment by

There's only a quantative and qualative difference to an idiot apologist who refuses to admit the religious motivation of anyone else who commits an atrocity.

Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Adolph Hitler... The worst mass murderers in history specifically for a twisted take on Christian beliefs.

The genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and subsequent attempted wipeout of their culture by forcing their children into church operated residential schools where abuse was the rule rather than the exception.

The ongoing witch hunts and forced conversions in Africa, massacres of entire Muslim villages in a twisted tango of retribution and escalation. The 100,000 killed by the asshole you keep saying isn't a Christian but even if I were to pretend that were true the motivation of the 10,000 adults that followed him a mere decade ago (and it didn't take torture for them to abandon that cause) was the "10 commandment based" Christian nation he sold them as an ideal.

You are full of crap.

old comment by Passerby

@ Trump's Kony Crony Phony

What, you're back? Man you'd think screaming "look over there, a distraction!" would eventually get old but I guess simple minds are easy to amuse.

Well pointing out that there is literally no difference between an Islamic zealot, a Christian zealot, or a nationalist zealot isn't getting through to you since you're still so adamantly fixated on your tribalistic world view that it's impossible for you to judge an action objectively or judge an individual without appending a group identity to them even if you have to perform mental contortion acts more twisted than the Gordanian knot so allow me to cut that knot with a little history lesson on why your fanciful ravings concerning the driving force in 1.6 billion people's lives have no basis in reality and are not an excuse to engage in global terrorism out of a nationalist agenda.

I'm done playing with you. Time to throw down, assclown.

You're familiar with the Crusades I'm sure? Now before you go tripping all over yourself to claim that a church sponsored military campaign to spread faith by the sword and wipe out nonbelievers led by the devout and oranized into ordained holy orders of knights has nothing to do with Christianity you can save yourself some effort by not getting your panties in a twist. While the positively Caligulan acts of bloodshed and depravity that soon became synonymous with the Crusades make for a nasty backdrop and a stark contrast raking them over the coals is a moot point.

What I'm going to analyze instead is what the Muslims did. Happy? Probably won't be in a minute so I guess you can keep those silky unmentionables on hand after all.

Our little adventure begins during the third of these little romps, trying to wrest Jerusalem from Muslim rule. Now I could go on a tangent about Saladin's sense of honour and fair treatment of civillians regardless of faith, how he told his soldiers in no uncertain terms they would be in deep shit if he caught them pillaging or raping, how he extended mercy and humane treatment to prisoners, (with one notable exception,) and how even his enemies agreed on his noble character. Again that's great for contrast but it isn't the point.

The important thing to note about Saladin is that he ran circles around everybody else in terms of military ability.

The Muslims won that fight. Pretty handily too. The Christian forces were routed, driven into a corner, and basically humiliated. The main strategists and leaders of the Crusaders were taken prisoner including King Richard the Lionheart. Heard of him? Kind of a popular figure in both history and fiction.

Well according to the hellish narrative you've written for Muslim beliefs, the very point of their lives that everything they ever do is meant to achieve, the imperative of their existence they can never deny... and so on and so forth and if they don't it's just a trick is blah blah blah jihad blah blah...

According to you this is the part of the story where everybody that isn't a Muslim dies and the various countries that committed their forces have their nobles and generals returned to them as heads on pikes or Muslim sleeper agents while the Caliphate demands yearly tribute and invades them one by one. Right? That sounds like what you were implying was the master plan every Muslim strives toward doesn't it?

Here's the thing: That did not happen. Saladin let them keep their lives, keep their faith, and pull out their forces to return home in exchange for ransoming his prisoners back to their countries as war reparations. Except Raynald of Chatillon but he was a serious d-bag and losing his head was long overdue. You'll probably jump on the ransoms but at that point in time ransom was standard procedure for all of the known world, this was a slight twist in that - apart from the really valuable political prisoners - every man was made to pay a small amount.

You see Saladin, a devout Muslim, thought a massacre a senseless waste of life and went out of his way to keep King Richard in particular alive and active in the war because Richard was A) Halfway reasonable and the best bet of ending the war with the least bloodshed lay with him. B) Kept some semblance of honour amongst his men and C) The loss of a king and so many other politically important figures would have sent the whole of Europe into chaos. He didn't want that.

So what say you then, to the fact that at one point in history during the height of the Caliphate's power the Muslims could have decimated the Christian power base and rendered a European conquest a matter of marching... that at one crucial point in history the endless war you delude yourself into thinking the focus of their doctrine and existence would have essentially been won... that at one precarious moment in world history when a Muslim general had every excuse and every advantage possible to justify retribution on a Christian coalition... gave peace a chance?

History, as ever, makes a mockery of you and the people who think like you. Would you like to refute world history? Maybe suggest an amazingly convoluted ulterior motive for not crushing the infidels then, there, and permanently as you say is their doctrine? Perhaps it was just the beginning of their long, long plan to have the British start colonies so that one would eventually fight for independance, then have a Muslim leader be the first to recognize the breakaway colony as a soveriegn government, then plant an agent there to be elected president in 200 years so that when the great war picks up again he can invite them into the country to take the jobs and welfare and spend another 100 years slowly and imperceptably erasing its culture until it is time to rebuild the Caliphate... back up to where they were at this one point of history that they didn't take over the world when they could've.

Your move, so come on and blow my mind. Take some time to stretch, mental gymnastics can do a number on you if you're not careful.

old comment by

@Passerby

"Well pointing out that there is literally no difference between an Islamic zealot, a Christian zealot, or a nationalist zealot"

There is. A Christian zealot is more likely to complain about what he considers to be sinful rather than kill people for it.

"isn't getting through to you since you're still so adamantly fixated on your tribalistic world view that it's impossible for you to judge an action objectively or judge an individual without appending a group identity to them"

No, I do not recognize religion in general as "group identity", not fully. I recognize that some followers may be superficial followers or might not know every aspect about their religion but that's about it. Group identity is something you can't change, have 0 control over in this regard and says nothing about who you are, so that would be something like race or gender in many cases (and even there you can find legitimate exceptions, I doubt you're going to fuck someone you're not attracted to just to prove you're "not a bigot"). Religion (like ideology) doesn't fit this definition. Otherwise, I could just as easily say you're an "anti-conservative bigot" and shut you down that way rather than a critic of conservative ideology. People can change their minds and their ideas do often reflect on the "content of their character" which even MLK thought was fair game to rip at. Trying to present religion as akin to race or some other inherent trait is stupid.

Now on to your historical blunders.

The crusades are fundamentally different from jihads. There were a total of 0 crusades for the first millennium of Christianity's existence, they were not wars intended to spread Christianity globally and subjugate non-Christians (no such idea in Jesus' teachings), they were an overreaction to Islamic imperialism and an attempt to recapture the holy lands. Granted atrocities were done, world conquest wasn't the goal. Without Islam there would almost certainly be no crusades. There hasn't been a crusade in hundreds of years either and European Christian theologians aren't calling for one. That is not the case with jihad.

The imperative to wage war on unbelievers in Islam is well established in both Quran and hadiths, and in the works of Islamic jurists from all the 4 major schools of Sunni Islam (Maliki, Hanbali, Shafi, Hanafi). That doesn't mean Muslims leaders are going to fight 24/7, especially if they don't believe they can win or if they logistically can't wage war, there is that consideration as well. Conquest doesn't happen over night. Even the first waves of successful Muslim conquests (i.e. after Mohammed's death) took decades. And Mohammed only managed to conquer the Arabian Peninsula during his life.

Your view of Saladin as this noble peace-loving figure who only fought in self-defense is incredibly naive and romanticized, I mean Saladin even fought other Muslims. He was appointed vizier by the Fatimid caliph in 1169 but secretly was disloyal. When the caliph died, he took advantage of that to gain power and waged war on Yemen, on pro-Fatimid rebellions, on Syria etc.

"The Muslims won that fight. Pretty handily too. The Christian forces were routed, driven into a corner, and basically humiliated. The main strategists and leaders of the Crusaders were taken prisoner including King Richard the Lionheart. Heard of him? Kind of a popular figure in both history and fiction. "

Let's see where this is going...

"According to you this is the part of the story where everybody that isn't a Muslim dies"

Not necessarily. There's dhimmitude as well which means non-Muslims may be allowed limited rights if they pay a tribute called the jizya tax. If you wanna be a dhimmi go ahead and continue to make half-assed apologist comments about how great and merciful Islam is. Most people I imagine don't.

Also your entire argument falls apart because Richard the Lionheart wasn't held prisoner by Saladin, but by Duke Leopold and later Henry VI (Holy Roman Emperor). Shit! You don't even have a basic clue wtf you're talking about...

"So what say you then, to the fact that at one point in history during the height of the Caliphate's power the Muslims could have decimated the Christian power base and rendered a European conquest a matter of marching..."

You're incredibly stupid if you think conquest would have been that easy. Just because you can defend the territory you hold and capture some leaders (just barely and again Lionheart wasn't even captured by Saladin) doesn't mean you have the power to march on to an entire continent and capture it overnight just by "marching". Christ, you are deluded. Kings are not even irreplaceable (John ruled England in Richard's abscence anyway). And Richard was no easy foe either. Mainly he got out because he was worried being away so long would just consolidate his brother's power.

"There commenced a period of minor skirmishes with Saladin's forces, punctuated by another defeat in the field for the Ayyubid army at the Battle of Jaffa. Baha' al-Din, a contemporary Muslim soldier and biographer of Saladin, recorded a tribute to Richard's martial prowess at this battle: “I have been assured that on that day the king of England, lance in hand, rode along the whole length of our army from right to left, and not one of our soldiers left the ranks to attack him. The Sultan was wroth thereat and left the battlefield in anger” Both sides realised that their respective positions were growing untenable. Richard knew that both Philip and his own brother John were starting to plot against him, and the morale of Saladin's army had been badly eroded by repeated defeats."

Oh yeah, clearly ready for a full-scale invasion of Europe. You fucking idiot. You wouldn't even get passed eastern Europe easily, let alone reach the western side.

"However, Saladin insisted on the razing of Ascalon's fortifications, which Richard's men had rebuilt, and a few other points. Richard made one last attempt to strengthen his bargaining position by attempting to invade EgyptSaladin's chief supply-basebut failed. In the end, time ran out for Richard. He realised that his return could be postponed no longer since both Philip and John were taking advantage of his absence."

Basically England was in no danger of being leaderless and that's just one European country.

"He and Saladin finally came to a settlement on 2 September 1192. The terms provided for the destruction of Ascalon's fortifications, allowed Christian pilgrims and merchants access to Jerusalem, and initiated a three-year truce"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_I_of_England#In_the_Holy_Land

"Maybe suggest an amazingly convoluted ulterior motive for not crushing the infidels then, there,"

Here's a thought: Because they physically couldn't?

Anyway you're a joke. BYE.

old comment by

@"There's only a quantative and qualative difference to an idiot apologist who refuses to admit the religious motivation of anyone else who commits an atrocity.

Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Adolph Hitler... The worst mass murderers in history specifically for a twisted take on Christian beliefs.

The ongoing witch hunts and forced conversions in Africa, massacres of entire Muslim villages in a twisted tango of retribution and escalation. The 100,000 killed by the asshole you keep saying isn't a Christian but even if I were to pretend that were true the motivation of the 10,000 adults that followed him a mere decade ago (and it didn't take torture for them to abandon that cause) was the "10 commandment based" Christian nation he sold them as an ideal.

You are full of crap. "

You really don't want to get into who is the worst mass murderer in history because I can post you the names of several communist dictators, all atheists.

Now a reasonable person would blame the communist ideology rather than atheism itself (which has no doctrine of class struggle, you can be a libertarian atheist, you can be a conservative atheist etc. and many are in fact atheism has no doctrine at all other than you don't believe there are gods) but somehow you want to blame Christianity as a direct culprit in many of these crimes even though in many cases the link either isn't there or it's indirect (once again no nuance at all) despite Christianity's lack of a universal warfare doctrine or a properly defined political system, both of which are present in Islam.

Vlad the Impaler, wow, that's one of your 3 main examples? Where is impalement described in Christian doctrine and why aren't more Christians worldwide doing it if it's a problem inherent in Christianity?

Hitler - LOL, you do realize he was a Nazi? I expect your puny brain to at least get that.

old comment by

@Anon-e-moose

"charges not refuted/ignored are charges proved"

No they're not and I don't give a shit what FRED Trump did or did not do anyway.

"Passerby's facts have done a number on you, little nutless phony rightist troll."

The guy is a retard and gets basic facts WRONG like he thinks Saladin was the one who held Richard the Lionheart hostage or that Saladin's army was strong enough to conquer the whole of Europe if they wanted to (AND in a short amount of time no less, just a "march" which would have taken maybe a few months with the transportation back then).

The only number he's done is on my faith in humanity, which was already low enough. What a stupid guy.

old comment by pyro

> Now a reasonable person would blame the communist ideology rather than atheism itself (which has no doctrine of class struggle, you can be a libertarian atheist, you can be a conservative atheist etc. and many are in fact atheism has no doctrine at all other than you don't believe there are gods) but somehow you want to blame Christianity as a direct culprit in many of these crimes even though in many cases the link either isn't there or it's indirect (once again no nuance at all) despite Christianity's lack of a universal warfare doctrine or a properly defined political system, both of which are present in Islam.

1. Plenty of Muslims flat-out ignore Sharia law (in the same way Christians ignore Old Testament law).

2. Those that follow it don't usually try to force non-Muslims to follow it.

3. Jihad of the mind; the Muslim version of Spiritual Warfare doctrines.

And finally:

4. AFAIK, the people you're arguing with blame Christianity for war to exactly the same extent that they blame Islam for war. None at all.

old comment by

@pyro

As I'm sure plenty of Nazis ignore national socialism and just do it to "fit in" with some crowd or another or because they think it's "cool", but you would take issue with that.

Also OT is widely ignored except for a few things. Sharia isn't, certainly not by theologians. To the extent that it's ignored, it's done by laymen and a handful of reformers with no power at all that would get executed if they ever spoke out. And some just lie and say they're moderate to fool you.

Also, out of those that are moderate (and let's assume they are genuine) there is no guarantee at all that they will stay moderate, no guarantee at all that their children will grow up to be moderate. In Europe the children of Muslim migrants are more radical than their parents were and extremely vulnerable to further radicalization. There is a fundamental disconnect between the view of Islam as purely personal religion and what the religion actually teaches about warfare and government so it takes little effort for a fundamentalist to sway them over to the pro-Sharia crowd. Even if they never become terrorists (which is bad enough) they will constantly try to undermine secularism and democracy from within.

Even if you go by the Pew polls and assume everyone answered truthfully (doubtful given that Islam allows one to lie under duress) large percentages of Muslims are quite open about their desire to see Sharia govern their countries.

Now go ahead and strawman this as "You just hate Muslims for being brown and think 100% of them are terrorists" because that's your level of intellect.

"4. AFAIK, the people you're arguing with blame Christianity for war to exactly the same extent that they blame Islam for war. None at all. "

Okay, they're deluded. :)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Oh, how the little nutless phony rightist troll flaps around in a panic, crapping on the board & knocking the pieces over, when he can't refute the proven facts exposed by Anonymous (thus his boyfriend is a member of a [i]white[/i] right-wing terrorist organisation).

If you can't explain why your boyfriend Donald Fart can't instead purge his support base of all racist & rightist elements, stop thinking the way he does - and unjustifiably so - and campaign purely on the issues on a solid platform of realistic policies (just as my MP Karl Turner did last year - as opposed to the racist & neo-Nazi UKRAP & National Front - on a purely issues & policy-based campaign; certainly Politically Correct, so why was he returned to Parliament with an increased majority, and UKRAP & the NF got nowhere in my locale?), then shoo, pigeon. Your rightist BS didn't work before, and your BS now will certainly avail you naught now or at any time between now and later this year. Or ever.

...that is if your boyfriend is actually nominated. If your rightist thinking was so 'superior', then he will be; indeed, 'tis a testament to the invulnerability of your way of thinking that Wiggy wasn't nominated the nanosecond after he declared he was running for office, eh...?!

If rightist thinking was so 'superior' to that of we leftists, then McCain would've won in 2008; also again in 2012, the Democrats would be in the position the Repubicans - i.e. the right-wing - are in right now (certainly since McCain post-2008), and we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

The fact you need to have this conversation here and now demonstrates the right-wing's desperation writ large.

Because you'd be confident, nay, secure in your 'faith' that, as your way of thinking obliterates that of we 'Leftists' every time, thus you wouldn't need to argue the toss with the likes of us on this board, you'd just sit back and relax, waiting for that guaranteed win later this year, with no need to be in FSTDT: flapping around in a panic, crapping on the board & knocking the pieces over like the pathetic & laughable little nutless phony rightist troll you're being right now.

Unless, as was pointed out here: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117908&Page=2#1930402: you're afraid. [/"Starship Troopers"]

Because that's what you and your way of thinking - certainly that of your boyfriend - is:

image image

(Right-wing thinking like yours is indestructible, and is impossible to refute o Nameless Coward: which is why you & all your ilk are so 'superior' to we 'Leftists', that the world is exactly as you rightists would wish it?):

image

Pathetic and laughable.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

And this is the "intellectual" level of a committed rightist:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117823&Page=2#1929339

@You

"Talk to the hand"

...and in that particular case, his inability to answer what is a simple unloaded question: 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does?', with a simpler 'Yes' or 'No'. What GCHQ, MI6, Scotland Yard, the FBI, CIA & NSA - including yours truly - can answer extremely easily: No.

Is saying 'Have you beaten your wife today?' an 'intellectual' question, when you display the ignorance-based inability to answer the same way as those who protect your country would, and extremely easily: 'No'?

...or do you actually support terrorists? Because we've yet to see you condemn the atrocities of your own home grown terrorists: based on [i]right[/i]-wing thinking.

...but then, we know why you - least of all your boyfriend, or else he [i]would[/i] purge all the racist [i]right[/i]ist elements from his support base - won't. Because he [i]belongs[/i] to one.

And how can savage satire of your boyfriend, and his & your way of thinking, be lowering any 'level', when they're statements of facts?

Why so pwecious, so insecure about what's said about your 'rightist' thinking & your boyfriend, if you - as a 'superior' right-winger - are supposed to be above we 'leftists', and anything we can possibly say about you & your ilk, if you are 'superior' to us, by virtue of your rightist thinking that is indestructible? Or is what's said about you here: http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117908&Page=2#1930402 just a little too correct for your own good...?!

'Intellectual level', you say? Yeah:

image

Because all you rightists are pure Oxford/Cambridge University Debating Society material, yessiree; your boyfriend would pound into the dirt anyone with his erudition, wit, and Intellect. Wouldn't he?

If you don't consider it too intellectually taxing, just a simpler 'Yes' or 'No' to the simple unloaded question 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does?' And we in FSTDT have never beaten/raped our wives. Why should we?

Because if GCHQ, MI6, Scotland Yard, FBI, CIA, NSA, yours truly, and that ISIS defector - who realised that he had no right to think the way he did, thus he supplied the West's intelligence services with that priceless ISIS data - can answer 'No', then what's your excuse?

old comment by Passerby

Huh, when I read Richard was captured at the end of the Crusades I took that to mean by the people he was fighting. While that is a rather large error on my part it actually doesn't change a single thing.

First you referenced the battle of Arsuf, one of the early engagements where the Crusaders had superior numbers. By the time Jaffa rolled around the German forces had packed up and left due to the death of their emperor and Richard had just over 2,000 men in any condition to fight after throwing them at Jerusalem in repeated failures and losing many others to Saladin's feints. Honestly pretty impressive his last engagement went as well as it did but had he stayed it would only have gone downhill.

The Crusades are remembered by history as such because the Muslims were actually able to put up a fight and survive multiple rounds, unlike loosely affiliated city-states and tribal communities. Otherwise it would be passed over as border expansion and bringing "civilation" to an area. Faith was the only thing uniting the forces of the Crusaders, the actual kingdoms were often in opposition.

However with such a massive military commitment to the Crusades including Kings -plural- Dukes and generals the ability of France and Germany to defend themselves against attack would be hobbled considerably and neither would really be able to count on the other for support. England was even worse off as it was in a period of civil unrest during Richard's absence and wouldn't have been able to unite cohesively to repel a direct invasion. Had Richard died in the Crusades or in prison (which I now know wasn't Saladin's) the realm would have undoubtedly ripped itself apart rather than bend knee to the unpopular John. Good thing for England Richard lived, though he might have died had Saladin not sent his personal physician to tend him at one point.

If you don't think setting off a civil war and then mopping up after all sides have exhausted themselves against each other is plausible after beating the combined forces of three kingdoms and some of their best military minds... well I have to wonder again about this long con strategy you imagine being used of just being in the area to somehow totally destroy a country from within. Moreover Saladin wasn't the only Muslim with an army yet none of them took advantage of the situation to wipe out the Christians entirely either. in fact some of Saladin's allies pulled their support to consolidate their own defenses and political purposes. They could have united and made it a real Jihad or even snuck around back and bum rushed Europe while their forces were still stretched thin.

Kind of like infidel murder wasn't their highest priority.

I do admire Saladin, but contrary to your attempting to shoehorn my perceptions into a group identity rather than a personal interest derrived from objective observation of actions he's taken I am aware of it has absolutely nothing to do with him being Muslim.

old comment by

@Passerby

Saladin was not someone you wanted to mess with, but you're still vastly underestimating what it takes to conquer land of that scale. It is not like defending territory you already hold at all and your enemy knows the land far better than you do. Plus Saladin was weakened himself militarily, no flawless victory here.

Also take a look at this 12th century map:

http://www.mappery.com/Old-Map-of-Europe-12th-century

In order to push into Europe and reach a supposedly weakened England from a supposedly dead Richard, Saladin would have had to first crush the Byzantine Empire (Constantinople didn't fall until almost 300 years LATER), crush Bulgaria, crush Hungary, crush many many many more countries to even carve a path to England (which is surrounded by water) and he still wouldn't be anywhere near conquering the entire continent.

This is wishful thinking. It's like trying to colonize Mars using the exact same space ship and technology that barely got a few people to the moon. There is no way it could have happened in Saladin's lifetime and it still didn't long after he was gone. Even the more ambitious Ottoman Empire couldn't go all the way. They barely even had a good grip on eastern Europe and there were constant wars with leaders refusing to pay tribute.

"If you don't think setting off a civil war and then mopping up after all sides have exhausted themselves against each other is plausible after beating the combined forces of three kingdoms and some of their best military minds... well I have to wonder again about this long con strategy you imagine being used of just being in the area to somehow totally destroy a country from within."

If it's not a con then it's gross stupidity, but it's not on part of the Muslims (at least for the most part, some Muslim preachers do brag about demographic jihad though, how Islam might one day dominate Europe through mass immigration and higher birthrates, but they didn't plan this), it's on part of the leftist elites in Europe who opened the door to mass immigration several decades ago and now have completely gone off the rails with the refugee crisis, particularly Merkel. Millions of Muslims are estimated to come just to Germany alone by 2020 thanks to her encouraging this.

Con, stupid or both, I don't really care. It's gotta stop because if this migration trend continues Europe is going to be unrecognizable by the end of the century. Might even come to a civil war in some countries when people have finally had enough of terrorists, Sharia preachers, common thugs and no-go zones. Maybe not, but it's a likely prediction given that a situation similar to Yugoslavia or Sudan is being created, where you have all these different incompatible groups forced to live together even though they don't get along and don't have enough common values to hold society together.

There's also the possibility that some governments in Europe will just become police states which is convenient for the elites. Deliberately cause strife with crappy migration policies and then offer the solution. Look at how heavily militarized Belgium is today, soldiers everywhere in Brussels like it's a war zone, and intelligence agencies asking for more power to spy on people. Impeachment by the people of these elites would be a better option, they've ruined Europe, they need to step down or change their tune.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Nameless Coward

...and if your rightist policies always 'Win', why isn't the world exactly as you would wish it?

But then, as per 'Does ISIS have the right to think the way it does: Yes or No?', you daren't answer that question. Ergo, Nameless Coward.

As was said here http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=117908&Page=2#1930402:

"But you're confident Drumpf will win, right? So why are you worried about what "idiotic" leftists do? If he wins, our opinion won't matter anymore!

Unless... You're afraid Trump won't win, so you decide to take care of your insecurity by going to websites full of leftists and ruthlessly attacking them! Yes! It all makes sense now!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

image

You wouldn't need to appear here if you weren't afraid.

You're clearly not tired of digging your - and Donald Fart's - hole of FAIL by your mental handicap-based obsessional need to keep returning here. Quite the masochist you are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12123600/Donald-Trump-defends-Vladimir-Putin-over-Alexander-Litvinenko-murder.html

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/vladimir-putin-just-made-a-massive-donald-trump-announcement/

'USSR'? Your bottom boyfriend bends over and takes it up his lardy arse from his lover boy - and proven paedophile - Vlad Putain: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3412134/I-wasn-t-ticklish-felt-good-boy-five-described-tummy-kiss-sparked-Putin-paedophile-claims-Russian-president-said-wanted-stroke-like-kitten.html who was an officer in the KGB.

...time for you to be in that river in Egypt. A proven terrorist organisation member, and a proven paedophile.

Has your boyfriend beaten his wife today?: http://jezebel.com/ivana-trump-says-ex-husband-donald-trump-sexually-viol-1720519422 Has his dom raped any little boys today...?

anonymous #fundie fstdt.com

95 comments

Confused?