If FDR were president he'd start putting Muslims in camps right about now?

Who was at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement(s)? And the civil rights campaigns of the 1950's and 60's? Mostly Christians, IIRC.

Who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to outlaw slavery in the 1960's? And who has not sincerely rejected it? Islam.

 

No, I'm just pointing out that Mohammad's imaginary friend isn't really all-knowing etc. I'm not necessarily sure what FDR would have done today, but if he put the Japanese in camps, he likely would have put Muslims in camps since they pose a far great threat today, since they won't condemn Mohammad's call to Jihad (ie world domination.)

 

If they were moral they'd simply create new versions that had no acceptance of slavery in them. Or at their next printing, have the thought "you know, maybe we DON'T need to bring forward the parts that say to kill innocent gays....". Hmmmmm....
Obviously modern Secular Humanists have higher standards than Christians do. Let's see Dawkins try to say in a book of his that slavery is acceptable. See the difference? One fights to keep slavery in the book, and another would fight to remove slavery from the book.

 

Then it's so unwilling to improve that it's not the best belief system ever, and they should clearly leave it. You are right that leaving is a great alternative, and yes, more satisfying than only altering it.

"Little Omar" would be more moral than his friends obviously if his texts did not say to kill gays, or that women are worth 1/2 a man, or to beat his mom (Q4:34), etc. Yes. You seem resistant to improving the world.

 

To be objective I must point out that the Egyptian Govt. (such as it is at this moment in time) has banned the Muslim Brotherhood (once again!).

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...hood-eliminating-its-critical-social-services

 

I'll be impressed when they ban a book that says that Christians/Jews are "the worst of creatures", and says to beat your wife (Q4:34), and that women are less intelligent that men, and that gays should be killed.

- - - Updated - - -

So in the name of saving innocent lives, should we ban their war manual (the Qur'an)?

 

7. RACIAL, ETHNIC, HOMOPHOBIC, GENDER, OR RELIGIOUS SLURS

http://www.politicalforum.com/rules.php

11. THREAD CREATION

The opening post of a thread sets the topic and the tone of the discussion. It should contain a member's opinions or questions with sufficient elaboration to establish a foundation for respectful discussion and debate

 

We know that the Koran mandates Jihad and consoles those reluctant to obey with the message that it is good for Muslims and that the individual Muslim doesn't necessarily know what is best for himself, but Allah does. And Allah commands Jihad from ALL.

But Jihad is also a struggle. An internal struggle for sure, but sometimes a physical struggle.

A struggle to do what?

To help Islam become world dominant.

However, based on the strife we see in some of the Muslim countries (I know some of it is factional, Shiite vs Sunni) and from what I've read, (specifically in the late Ayatollah Khomeini's Little Green Book) that Muslims who aren't fundamentalists are despised as much as infidels.

But that doesn't mean that even those modernist Muslims aren't ALSO duty bound to perform Jihad as well.

Because they are Muslim.

They may have a very laid-back attitude about the subject of establishing a Global Caliphate. They may be like Casablanca's Capt. Renault when it comes to dealing with the Germans. But we also know about the Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

Uh oh, I have to run to take care of something. But I can't stay and edit this 90% completed post.

So, I'll resume when I return.

 

There was a time , during my parents lifetime, ( + perhaps yours,) when it would've been - "Better ten/twenty /hundred Somalis - than 1 Jap. - Huh ?

btw - in 1958 - I briefly served as galley boy on an East Africa BI Line ship - stopped over at Mogadishu , where I jumped ship changed over toa Lloyd-Triestino Liner

. It was ofc at that time a very different world . (wink)

..

....

 

There are 2 types of Jihad: Jihad as inner (spiritual) struggle, and Jihad against the Infidel. The first one is good, the second one has caused the US to be in the longest war in it's entire history, WITH NO END IN SIGHT. The sooner people leave Islam the sooner this war can end, and our economy will recover much quicker. I love Muslims, but detest Jihad against the Infidel.
Jihad is how Mohammad wanted to expand Islam to dominate the world "until their is no religion but Allah's"...they spell out their plans for world domination in their own texts even.

 

Actually, you're making an quasi-ideological point, saying the Islam = jihad for world domination, and mainly a nationalist/racist point, claiming Muslims here are all enemies.

But FDR just went along with a wave of racial panic/hate on the west coast when he interned the Japanese-American citizens. There being no similar wave of anti-Muslim sentiment now (despite your best efforts), there would be no motive for a politician like FDR to act.

 

We're not sure what you're talking about. Maybe we missed where the book legitimizes slavery, and also where anyone contemporary uses any text to justify slavery. There is some talk about it, but that is historical perspective and is not interpreted as instruction for how we ought to be today. Quite the opposite in fact. IIRC it was Christian people who made the most forceful and ultimately effective campaign to rid the world of it.

Still don't know what to do about the characters in the topic though. Been contemplating it these 12 long years. It's a thorny one.

 

We're going to have to go quite a bit further than that. The rate we're going, someday we're going to wake up to some really horrible news and that time maybe we won't hit the snooze bar, like last time.

 

What a staggering thread of such hypocritical proportions.

Amazing.

Truly this time, it has gone super nova.

Can you imagine what would happen to ANYONE on here that dared ran (with a headline in World News), along the lines of

If Hitler were in charge he'd start putting Jews in camps right about now?

Then it would be Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo different.

 

You have a very good point.

(About this thread, but not about the Jews....)

 

It's fine though.

It's about Muslims, so it's all good.

Apparently.

 

Is It?

 

Well it must be.

It is self evidently true and beyond all possible doubt.

I explained why before.

It's fine though.

As long as we all now formally know.

 

Suppose there HAD been sabotage from Japanese agents in WWII and that FDR HADN'T interned the Japanese.

You'd say, "yes, but you can't live life by saying, 'what if, what it...?'"

But, that's precisely what you are doing!

You are assuming there would have been no japanese espionage nor related sabotage on the US West Coast.

But, in fact, the Pearl Harbor attack was planned with help from actual Japanese agents based in Hawaii who reconnoitered the naval base and the harbor and provided the Japanese military with detailed info on the fleet's comings and goings before Dec. 7, 1941.

That's just a taste of what MIGHT have gone on all throughout the war had the Japanese NOT been interred.

And you are supposing that no other acts of sabotage would have taken place if FDR had not interred the Japanese.

You are not seeing things clearly, realistically.

If Jihad attacks increased in the US and were becoming epidemic there would be a huge cry from the populace to make sure that Muslims weren't helping to make these attacks happen.

I could see a POTUS taking similar measures if, for no other reason, to protect Muslims from random acts of violence.

 

You sound like you've forgotten the most salient point, Jack.

Islam IS at war with the West.

It's not like we are cautious/hostile/suspicious about dealing with Muslims for no good reason.

- - - Updated - - -

You play the part of innocent victim very convincingly, Jack.

 

yep, hitler would be proud of them

 

Never happen. But thanks for pointing out that it was a Democrat, as is the historical precedence, who institutionalized that form of racism.

 

From what I know of the Japanese American citizens, they had transferred their loyalty to America, with the intensity of nationist fervor typical of their culture intact. Being dispossessed and interned did not crack their loyalty a bit. So no, I do not think that, absent such provocation, there would have been one bit of espionage and sabotage from them on the west coast, and I think that's a reasonable view.

But any such 'assumption' is not the basis for my disapproval of the internment policy. The policy violated the constitutional rights of American citizens. It was criminally wrong, period, end of story.

If there had been any individuals among them inclined to espionage/sabotage, the right approach would have been to use lawful security measures to detect and punish them in accordance with due process of law.

Any mass internment of Muslims here now would be similarly criminal and wrong. Period.

 

Okay.

You seem permitted to state that.

Jewry is at war with the World.

So.

On that basis, it would be equally as okay for me to start a thread in World News based on putting them in concentration camps.

Yes?

Or let me see... do you believe there is some *exception* you wish to create?

 

I think this thread is skating because the OP doesn't 'actually advocate' putting Muslims in camps. He just says a dead president would do it, and otherwise says stuff around the idea.

There should be a rule allowing posters to be banned if they try to be too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clever.