Is it immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?

[deltex1]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

 

[JoeB131]

Anyone who would chop down a cherry tree and then lie about it is a terrorist.

No, but if you were a Tory who was loyal to the crown, and these guys were rebelling against the established government, and at the end of the war, you had to flee to Canada, as millions of Loyalists did.... you might see Geo. Washington as a terrorist.

I would see him as a revolutionary.

I would see him as an asshole who didn't want to pay his fair share in taxes and kept wanting to fuck his slaves...

But that's just me.

 

[JoeB131]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

 

[deltex1]

Anyone who would chop down a cherry tree and then lie about it is a terrorist.

No, but if you were a Tory who was loyal to the crown, and these guys were rebelling against the established government, and at the end of the war, you had to flee to Canada, as millions of Loyalists did.... you might see Geo. Washington as a terrorist.

I would see him as a revolutionary.

I would see him as an asshole who didn't want to pay his fair share in taxes and kept wanting to fuck his slaves...

But that's just me.

That's being the average American male...money and pussy rule!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Islam made Iraq a piece of shit long ago. And as we tried to fix it, Islam said 'we want to keep our stuff shitty'... Your logic is about like blaming corporate America for the existence of gangs. Yea, there's plenty to criticize corporate America for; but ultimately the gangs are just full of shitty people doing their best to spread their misery.

Yup, you're totally not racist.

Here's the thing, before we started making war on the place, Iraq was a prosperous country. Then Saddam, who Reagan thought was a great guy, but he turned on Bush, got them into wars with us.

Maybe we need to start owning the problems we cause.

Again, sticking your dick in a hornets nest means you don't get the right to complain about being stung.

I didn't even mention race...but somehow your dopey brain made a connection. Oh, is saying that gangs are bad is the new racist? Did you get that marching order and I missed it?

Saddam had his own racist war of terror on the Iraqi people. For you to go and bla bla bla otherwise is just sick...

This isn't about complaining...It's about the root cause of Iraq's problems. And Islam is the scourge that brought Iraq to that state.Oppression does that.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

Uh huh. So, was Osama a terrorist or what?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You were a potato peeler...if that. But that's beside the point. Anyhow, let's not get away from it....Are you honestly saying that Osama was not a terrorist?

Uh, you do realize no one in the army peels potatoes anymore, right? Haven't in a long time.

Terrorist is a word that has no meaning and should be expunged from the language. What do you even mean by that? That he's someone who makes you feel really scared as you hunker down with your arsenal?

The word has no meaning to obabblites. It has meaning to clear thinkers.

Terrorist is rooted in the word terror. It's based upon using terror to accomplish means. And its connotative meaning regards the great evil means to which it is done. Denying that Osama is a terrorist is just dumb.

 

[deltex1]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This thread inspired by the insight of former GBII adviser Elliot Abrams and the audacious rhetoric of Mr. Mohamad Mukadam.

Abrams states:

What is authentic Islam? Is ISIS an authentic form of Islam, or is it not? I think it's very important that the United States government shut-up about that question...

It used to annoy me enormously when President [George W.] Bush, for whom I was working, would say, 'Islam is a religion of peace...

For American government officials to be telling Muslims, 'I know real Islam' ... is ridiculous. It would be an outrage about Judaism and Christianity as well. ... For government officials who are 99 percent Christians to be trying to find what is authentic in Islam seems to me to be a fool's errand...

The average American thinks this (that Islam is a religion of peace) is crap...

The only people doing the beheadings are Muslims, so don't tell me it's all wonderful...

Is there something in Islam that has led some Muslims to behave in a way we consider to be terrible? And what's the debate within Islam?... That's a real description of a real problem... saying 'Islam is a religion of peace' isn't [realistic].

When asked about if Muslims kill apostates, this was Mr. Mohamad Mukadam's response:

"If it's an Islamic country, the Sharia is very clear. Apostasy is dealt with the death penalty."

Knowing that Islam is a great evil in this world, is it thusly immoral to vote for a politician who calls Islam a religion of peace?

Source: Should Presidents Call Islam a Religion of Peace Two George W. Bush Officials Debate

Source: Mr. Mohamad Mukadam gives his take on death to apostates.

And for the sake of further clarity, George W Bush and Obama have both called Islam a religion of peace; and neither of them have reversed their positions on the matter.

I always say, " judge by results." What is the result in countries dominated by muslims?
Would you want to live there?

Exactly. I'd use the Jesus's analogy 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' Islam is monkey brains to Christianity's In N' Out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

Terror is a tactic, not a person. It cannot be wiped from the face of the earth no matter how many people you kill. You can get close by killing all humans however.

 

[JoeB131]

Terrorist is rooted in the word terror. It's based upon using terror to accomplish means. And its connotative meaning regards the great evil means to which it is done. Denying that Osama is a terrorist is just dumb.

Again, Reagan said he was like totally a freedom fighter when he was killing Russians. You don't think the poor Russian conscript in Afghanistan felt "Terror". Or the Russian who might be blow up by a Chechen separatist.

 

[deltex1]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

Terror is a tactic, not a person. It cannot be wiped from the face of the earth no matter how many people you kill. You can get close by killing all humans however.

Terrorists are persons. Identifiable and there to be killed. Let's get on with it, Crusaders!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Terrorist is rooted in the word terror. It's based upon using terror to accomplish means. And its connotative meaning regards the great evil means to which it is done. Denying that Osama is a terrorist is just dumb.

Again, Reagan said he was like totally a freedom fighter when he was killing Russians. You don't think the poor Russian conscript in Afghanistan felt "Terror". Or the Russian who might be blow up by a Chechen separatist.

And by your phony logic, that makes him a freedom fighter when he was killing three thousand innocents?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

Terror is a tactic, not a person. It cannot be wiped from the face of the earth no matter how many people you kill. You can get close by killing all humans however.

Terrorists are persons. Identifiable and there to be killed. Let's get on with it, Crusaders!

Terrorists are persons only when they decide to use terror. Up to that point they are just people.

And we happily use terror, it wins wars.

 

[JoeB131]

And by your phony logic, that makes him a freedom fighter when he was killing three thousand innocents?

No, I don't think he was EITHER. He wasn't a Freedom Fighter when he was trying to impose his extreme views on Afghanistan, and he wasn't a terrorist when he sponsored an attack on the WTC.

We was an extremist.

And we armed him.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And by your phony logic, that makes him a freedom fighter when he was killing three thousand innocents?

No, I don't think he was EITHER. He wasn't a Freedom Fighter when he was trying to impose his extreme views on Afghanistan, and he wasn't a terrorist when he sponsored an attack on the WTC.

We was an extremist.

And we armed him.

Gatsby should read this, he'll agree with a lot of it. Full text bin Laden s letter to America World news The Guardian

 

[deltex1]

Terrorists are defined by tactics not causes.

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

Terror is a tactic, not a person. It cannot be wiped from the face of the earth no matter how many people you kill. You can get close by killing all humans however.

Terrorists are persons. Identifiable and there to be killed. Let's get on with it, Crusaders!

Terrorists are persons only when they decide to use terror. Up to that point they are just people.

And we happily use terror, it wins wars.

I think you meant to say persons are terrorists when they decide to use
Terror.

 

[sealybobo]

Typically a voter will not agree with everything said by every politician that the voter votes for.

Tis true. But the question remains, is this issue so fundamental that voting for a terrorist ideology sympathizer to be rather egregious?

Let me put it this way; say you agreed with everything a candidate said, except he advocated robbing people at gunpoint. Would that one single issue make it immoral for you to vote for him? Perhaps, this question is on that level_ or otherwise approaches it.

See everyone how they use religion to divide us? Perfect example.

We aren't buying it. We know that 99% of our Muslim Americans are not going to strap a bomb to themselves or go out with a gun and shoot up synagogs or malls. There are a small number of radical muslims in America who might be considered dangerous and I hope that our government is watching them and catches them before they do anything bad.

But overall, Muslim Americans just want to live in freedom and peace. Would they like for Christians to convert? Of course they would. And that bothers Christians because they want a monopoly on this. Jews don't recruit so Christian aren't threatened by them.

Oh, and for you Christians who claim your religion isn't racist. Why do you think so many black Americans are becoming Muslim instead of Christian? Because they don't want to worship your white god who says bigots like you go to heaven. I know there are good christians too. But way too many bad ones for it not to sort of reflect on the entire religion itself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You know, that's a very good point.

In the film "The Battle of Algiers", they ask one of the rebel leaders why he used bombs planted in women's baskets to kill French soldiers.

And he replied, "Why do you use planes to drop bombs? I would gladly trade our women's baskets for your planes."

True...terrorists make do with what they have. Which makes me wonder why we don't make do with what we have and wipe them off the face of the earth once and for all...instead of creating Rules of engagement to tie our hands and prolong the conflict.

Terror is a tactic, not a person. It cannot be wiped from the face of the earth no matter how many people you kill. You can get close by killing all humans however.

Terrorists are persons. Identifiable and there to be killed. Let's get on with it, Crusaders!

Terrorists are persons only when they decide to use terror. Up to that point they are just people.

And we happily use terror, it wins wars.

I think you meant to say persons are terrorists when they decide to useTerror.

That's what I said...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And by your phony logic, that makes him a freedom fighter when he was killing three thousand innocents?

No, I don't think he was EITHER. He wasn't a Freedom Fighter when he was trying to impose his extreme views on Afghanistan, and he wasn't a terrorist when he sponsored an attack on the WTC.

We was an extremist.

And we armed him.

You can call Osama an extremist. The term is not mutually exclusive from terrorist just cos your god uses it is as a replacement term. (And so you're whole 1980 Reagan, Afghan crap meant nothing with regards to terminology...just thought you'd see if I'd get lost in that rabbit hole; PATHETIC).