The Legacy of Mohammed

[eagle1462010]

Fuck these animals...............

 

[Vigilante]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Sunni Man]

Of course, lots of the bad guys have weapons. However, right now in the U.S. average citizens are getting weapons to defend themselves. As one person told me, he never believed in guns, but now he has bought one. My husband sees lots of women down at the gun range learning to shoot now.

Ya don't say........

 

[eagle1462010]

Now serving ISIS, #666.............Your seat is ready.

 

[Osomir]

1.) Nagaland's population has less than 2% Muslims
2.) The fighting in Nagaland has little to do with Islam. They are more of a breakaway region from India. Fighting what they see as Hindu and ethnically foreign administration by the central Indian government.

"get it straight"

What's your point? Nagland is an Indian state that has had turmoil since it's inception. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims slaughtered tens of millions of Indian Hindus in the name of Islam.

My point is that you were wrong. You should take the time to know what you are talking about before spouting off such condescending opinions. I understand that you hide your insecurity within such name calling and condescension, but that isn't really a winning tactic.

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, they'll target anybody with issues. There were trying to recruit people into Islam during the Fergusen protests.

Is this amirmuwahid76 nut actually trying to tell us that he is one of Calypso Louie Farrakhan henchmen recruited from some prison? He seems to forget that the Vigilantes can ride again here in America. Maybe instead of his trying to threaten non-Muslims, he instead should go visit the Black Muslim women of Darfur living in tents in refugee camps in Chad as a result of the lighter skinned Muslim Arabs. They could use some help from him. Maybe as a Black man, he doesn't care what lighter-skinned Muslims are doing to his people in places like the Sudan where the President doesn't want to have any more Black tribes living there? If what is happening in the Sudan doesn't bother him, he can go join the Boko Haram to satisfy his blood lust.

Sally----I do not think that there will be a whole lot of vigilantes
out there with an agenda to get the muslim population under
control in the USA-------but it might happen in several
European countries . There are far more subtle ways to
solve the problem

I don't know about that, IRosie. The guns and ammo have flown off the shelves here in America so many Americans are well armed at the present time. Many people even have gotten concealed weapon permits. I don't think the people in Europe are well armed except the Swiss who can take their weapons home after they finish their military service.

when people want weapons ----they manage to get them---
don't ask me how-------I know because I have seen lots of
bullets in brains in my city in which almost no one can get a gun permit. I also know that in my city if someone wants
heroin he can get it. Don't ask me how-----I would not know---but I have seen lots of illicit drugs. There are lots of
unregistered weapons all over the world

Of course, lots of the bad guys have weapons. However, right now in the U.S. average citizens are getting weapons to defend themselves. As one person told me, he never believed in guns, but now he has bought one. My husband sees lots of women down at the gun range learning to shoot now.

so true Sally-----I think that the Islamic IN HONOR OF ALLAH---murder spree in France is going to have a big
effect on the thinking of USA people across the board----
the people of the USA have a very soft spot in their hearts for
France. France gave us the STATUE OF LIBERTY------
and the best perfumes--------and we even named our FRENCH FRIES after them

 

[irosie91]

What's your point? Nagland is an Indian state that has had turmoil since it's inception. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims slaughtered tens of millions of Indian Hindus in the name of Islam.

My point is that you were wrong. You should take the time to know what you are talking about before spouting off such condescending opinions. I understand that you hide your insecurity within such name calling and condescension, but that isn't really a winning tactic.

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

there is nothing even remotely "LOGICAL" about your post and you pointed out no "logical inconsistentcies" Your statement ------"you are predicating your statement on the notion that people in third world countries are perfect in conflict"-------does not even make sense. Can you cite those
statements that ASSERT "PEOPLE IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES ARE PERFECT IN CONFLICT"???

next bit of standard mosque idiocy virtually identical to its sister bit of meaningless nonsense "islamo is not monolithic"---------.....".relate to each other in an overly generalized way" -----------well---guess what----there are beliefs generally held by muslims world wide-----I learned that fact from muslims educated in more than a score of different
muslim countries. A good example is the fantasy of the
THE GLORIOUS CALIPHATE-----whether it be the caliphate
centered in BAGHDAD or pile of shit caliphate called ANDALUSIA or even the cesspool called the MOGHUL EMPIRE-------the idea of a caliphate is a commonly held bit of Islamic shit

 

[asaratis]

 

[irosie91]

I am studying along with you. In order to perfect my penmanship-----I have copied and printed your first lesson and will LEARN it well

 

[Roudy]

What's your point? Nagland is an Indian state that has had turmoil since it's inception. That doesn't take away from the fact that Muslims slaughtered tens of millions of Indian Hindus in the name of Islam.

My point is that you were wrong. You should take the time to know what you are talking about before spouting off such condescending opinions. I understand that you hide your insecurity within such name calling and condescension, but that isn't really a winning tactic.

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

 

[Osomir]

My point is that you were wrong. You should take the time to know what you are talking about before spouting off such condescending opinions. I understand that you hide your insecurity within such name calling and condescension, but that isn't really a winning tactic.

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

 

[irosie91]

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

what countries are those?

 

[Osomir]

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

what countries are those?

Yemen, Somalia, northern Nigeria, Iraq, Libya, Mali, etc.

 

[irosie91]

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

what countries are those?

Yemen, Somalia, northern Nigeria, Iraq, Libya, Mali, etc.

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"? Somalia---
Islamic faction against Islamic faction. which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??
Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

 

[Osomir]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

 

[irosie91]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

 

[Osomir]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.

 

[Roudy]

You have no point. The topic of this thread is "The Legacy of Mohammad" yet you prefer to talk about an obscure conflict that nobody gives a shit about in India, that doesn't compare to what Muslims have done there. The legacy of Mohammad in India has been far more devastating and killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Get it straight.

My point was to utilize it as an example of how even you guys, with all of your advantages, aren't perfectly versed in global conflict, so the assumption that people living in third world countries would be is a bit of a stretch; furthermore, you guys i'm sure hardly relate to such groups (which is perfectly reasonable, you have little enough in common) just like most Muslims who you are fingerprinting in your generalizations and accusations of tacit approval hardly see themselves connected to these violent groups in the same way that you do.

You seem to be well versed in derailing any thread that has anything negative about Islam in it. Did anybody claim to be well versed in every single fucking conflict in the world now, however obscure or minute? Wake up and smell the Jihad.

Yes, you guys are predicating your notion of Muslim tacit approval of Islamist terrorism on the illogical notion that people in third world countries:

A.) are perfectly versed in conflict

And

B.) even relate to each other in the overly generalized way that you have arbitrarily decided to group them


Side note: it isn't a derailment of a thread to point out logical inconsistencies within your stances.

People in the third world who are suffering from Islamist terrorists waging ethnic cleansing and genocide, don't need to be "well versed in conflict." All they see is a bunch of religious Muslim assholes coming to kill them. This is the legacy of Mohammad and the fruits of Islam, 1400 years later. Neanderthal barbarian savages. We have one right here in this thread.

And in those countries it tends to be Muslims on the front lines fighting those local expressions of extremism. Your bigotry would lump all of them together though, and they deserve better than that.

Pay attention knucklehead, the LEGACY OF MOHAMMAD, is causing Muslims to slaughter both Muslims and non Musłims in the name of Islam.

Had these Muslim nations and their public not enabled, idolized, elevated and encouraged the Al Quedas, Muslim Brotherhoods, Talibans, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollahs etc as "heroic religious warriors" they wouldn't be facing this cancer themselves. So they are sowing what they have reaped.

Now that the cat is out of the bag it's too late, too little. Funny how they want the West, the same people they spent decades bashing and trashing, to help them fight the Islamists.

 

[Roudy]

what a joke you are-----Yemen? its sunnis vs Shiites ---which ones you want to call "the extremists"?

I am calling AQAP extremists in Somalia, and it has largely been both the Shafis and the Zaidi who have been fighting them. My Yemen example has nothing to do with Sunni vs Shiites.

Somalia---Islamic faction against Islamic faction.

So you agree with me then that Muslims are on the front line fighting against Al Shabaab. Good.

which are the
"extremists" Iraq? ISIS vs kurds???----vs Shiites??

Kurds are largely Muslims too.

Libya----one insane Islamic faction against they other.
Mali? same thing

You should study both regions and conflicts a little more if you honestly feel comfortable reducing their conflicts to the above. In either case it seems like you've conceded the point that it is generally Muslims fighting radical Muslim groups in these areas.

you are a joke-----I have conceded WHAT??? I have conceded that for the past 1400 years muslims have engaged in internecine fighting -----basing their conflcts on anything
from religious doctrine to-----(as in the Yemeni civil war raging since circa 1960) WHO GETS THE OIL and to
WHO GETS TO BE CALIPH. I fail to see the situation as
"the good guys vs the bad guys". Who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" ----in the Shiite vs Sunni
thing going on since the inception of Pakistan? Since we are on the subject-----who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the 1971 Pakistani civil war?

I stated that most of the fighting against these radical groups that we currently hate is being done by Muslims. You admitted that this was true. Pretty straight forward.

There is no real "fighting", idiot. Groups like ISIS are basically doing what they want, slaughtering those they believe aren't followers of true Islam, and of course non Musłims. The only people in their way are militarized secular regimes and their armies in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia who are fighting to keep their power, and ethnic groups like the Kurds who are considered apostates by the Islamists.

No "Muslim" picked up any weapons until their village or city was attacked by Islamists like ISIS or Boko Haram, by that time most of them were fleeing, those who remained were slaughtered in the name of Mohammad, while the rest were either raped and sold into slavery or raped and killed. There's your legacy of Mohammad in the 20th and 21st century.