About TheReligionofPeace.com

[High_Gravity]

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The Shah of Iran is a boy scout compared to the Mullahs currently running Iran.

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

Prejudiced? yeah right.

 

[High_Gravity]

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The Shah of Iran is a boy scout compared to the Mullahs currently running Iran.

Incorrect

The CIA-trained SAVAK police under the Shah were ten times more brutal and repressive then the Mullahs have ever been.

The basji and Revolutionary guard have filled the role of the Savak and have done a bang up job.

 

[High_Gravity]

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The Shah of Iran is a boy scout compared to the Mullahs currently running Iran.

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

You can talk to people who have been to Iran and they can verify this for you, I don't even know what to tell you at this point, if you want to believe Iran is like Belgium so be it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Shah of Iran is a boy scout compared to the Mullahs currently running Iran.

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

Prejudiced?

Exactly. You claim the Shah, a secular leader, was a less brutal dictator than 'the Mullahs'.
That's opinion.

I make no such claim.

 

[High_Gravity]

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

Prejudiced?

Exactly. You claim the Shah, a secular leader, was a less brutal dictator than 'the Mullahs'.

Thats because he was. Do some research and see how things were in Iran before 1979, and compare it to now.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Shah of Iran is a boy scout compared to the Mullahs currently running Iran.

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

You can talk to people who have been to Iran and they can verify this for you, I don't even know what to tell you at this point, if you want to believe Iran is like Belgium so be it.

That is uncalled for. I don't think Belgium is like Iran. I'm saying it's ridiculous to say the Shah was a less brutal dictator than the Mullahs.

Stick to your own statements and mine, please.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Prejudiced?

Exactly. You claim the Shah, a secular leader, was a less brutal dictator than 'the Mullahs'.

Thats because he was. Do some research and see how things were in Iran before 1979, and compare it to now.

You want me to do YOUR work for YOU? You made the claim, you back it up.

 

[High_Gravity]

That is your prejudiced opinion. It's a silly statement unable to be backed by facts.

You can talk to people who have been to Iran and they can verify this for you, I don't even know what to tell you at this point, if you want to believe Iran is like Belgium so be it.

That is uncalled for. I don't think Belgium is like Iran. I'm saying it's ridiculous to say the Shah was a less brutal dictator than the Mullahs.

Stick to your own statements and mine, please.

Thats fine, I just found out my Celtics traded away our best center for nothing, so I am going to go sulk about it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Exactly. You claim the Shah, a secular leader, was a less brutal dictator than 'the Mullahs'.

Thats because he was. Do some research and see how things were in Iran before 1979, and compare it to now.

You want me to do YOUR work for YOU? You made the claim, you back it up.

I have already done it, thats why I know the Mullahs are worse than the Shah.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Thats because he was. Do some research and see how things were in Iran before 1979, and compare it to now.

You want me to do YOUR work for YOU? You made the claim, you back it up.

I have already done it, thats why I know the Mullahs are worse than the Shah.

Bull. Where are the links?

 

[High_Gravity]

You want me to do YOUR work for YOU? You made the claim, you back it up.

I have already done it, thats why I know the Mullahs are worse than the Shah.

Bull. Where are the links?

Why? you already have it in your head the Mullahs are like Santa Clause.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I have already done it, thats why I know the Mullahs are worse than the Shah.

Bull. Where are the links?

Why? you already have it in your head the Mullahs are like Santa Clause.

Another LIE about what I believe. Show me the post where I've said the Mullahs are less brutal than the Shah.

I'm saying you cannot say one is worse than the other.

Stop misrepresenting my view, please.

 

[High_Gravity]

Bull. Where are the links?

Why? you already have it in your head the Mullahs are like Santa Clause.

Another LIE about what I believe. Show me the post where I've said the Mullahs are less brutal than the Shah.

I'm saying you cannot say one is worse than the other.

Stop misrepresenting my view, please.

Thats fine, either way I gotta bounce so we can try and resume this tomorrow. Either way me saying the Shah is worse than the Mullahs is a matter of opinion anyways, some people like the way the Mullahs are running the show, however keep in mind if they were doing such a bang up job there would be no Green movement.

 

[logical4u]

As long as the oil flowed.

Or in Mubarak's case; didn't attack Israel.

The U.S. could care less what these brutal dictators did to their people.

Just keep giving them money and weapons to suppress their people.

Muslims being described as "brutal dictators"? Where does that faith allow that? What islamic nation is not run by a dictator?

Malaysia

It has a majority of muslims, but is not a 'muslim nation'.

Wikipedia

"The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion and makes Islam the official religion. According to the Population and Housing Census 2000 figures, approximately 60.4% of the population practiced Islam of which only the Sunni branch is allowed;[158] 19.2% Buddhism; 9.1% Christianity; 6.3% Hinduism; and 2.6% practice Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions. The remainder was accounted for by other faiths, including animism, folk religion, and Sikhism while 0.8% either reported having no religion or did not provide any information."

 

[Sky Dancer]

Muslims being described as "brutal dictators"? Where does that faith allow that? What islamic nation is not run by a dictator?

Malaysia

It has a majority of muslims, but is not a 'muslim nation'.

Wikipedia

"The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion and makes Islam the official religion. According to the Population and Housing Census 2000 figures, approximately 60.4% of the population practiced Islam of which only the Sunni branch is allowed;[158] 19.2% Buddhism; 9.1% Christianity; 6.3% Hinduism; and 2.6% practice Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions. The remainder was accounted for by other faiths, including animism, folk religion, and Sikhism while 0.8% either reported having no religion or did not provide any information."

I didn't say Malaysia was a Muslim theocracy. It's a Muslim nation in the same way that people say the US is a Christian nation.

I'm completely opposed to theocracy of any kind, Muslim or Christian. Did you know the Queen is the official head of the Church of England?

9 Roman Catholic nations in Europe and South America
4 Eastern Orthodox in Europe
4 Lutheran in Europe
1 Anglican....in England, of course!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries


Fourteen Dalai Lamas ruled over Tibet before it was lost to the Chinese invasion.

 

[logical4u]

You need to stop confusing dictatorship with Islamic. Democratic elections were suspended under a state of emergency in 1992 because the ISLAMICISTS were winning. The protestors are MUSLIM.

What the west can't stand is if these countries CHOOSE Islamic leaders.

I'm for democracy, how about you? Let the people CHOOSE. No one wants a dictatorship.

That is one of the point here... the "people" are not getting to choose. They riot and want "liberty", but what they get is another muslim leader promising to listen to the people that some how turns out to be, yet, another dictator, that uses ruthless methods to hold onto power. With Shariah law, you cannot criticize your religious leader (your current dictator) without punishment under Shariah law. It is a very sad cycle. It has been repeating itself in the ME since islam took hold. If you lived for another fourteen hundred years, it would still be the same. Islam = abuse, corruption, misery and poverty for as long as the Shariah is part of the religion.

 

[logical4u]

You need to stop confusing dictatorship with Islamic. Democratic elections were suspended under a state of emergency in 1992 because the ISLAMICISTS were winning. The protestors are MUSLIM.

What the west can't stand is if these countries CHOOSE Islamic leaders.

So than Algeria is not a democracy. The dictators of these countries are Muslim, and all of them have Islam as the official state religion, even "moderate" countries like UAE, Jordan, Turkey etc. follow Islamic law, some of them just enforce it harder than others. What do you think happens when Islamic parties triumph in these elections? they never have elections again.

I don't consider a 19 year 'emergency' suspension of democratic elections to meet the test for democracy, no.

Just as we couldn't elect a non-christian to the White House in America today, you're not going to see a non-muslim elected President in a predominantly Muslim country.

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

 

[Sky Dancer]

You need to stop confusing dictatorship with Islamic. Democratic elections were suspended under a state of emergency in 1992 because the ISLAMICISTS were winning. The protestors are MUSLIM.

What the west can't stand is if these countries CHOOSE Islamic leaders.

I'm for democracy, how about you? Let the people CHOOSE. No one wants a dictatorship.

That is one of the point here... the "people" are not getting to choose. They riot and want "liberty", but what they get is another muslim leader promising to listen to the people that some how turns out to be, yet, another dictator, that uses ruthless methods to hold onto power. With Shariah law, you cannot criticize your religious leader (your current dictator) without punishment under Shariah law. It is a very sad cycle. It has been repeating itself in the ME since islam took hold. If you lived for another fourteen hundred years, it would still be the same. Islam = abuse, corruption, misery and poverty for as long as the Shariah is part of the religion.

Predominantly Muslim nations will choose Muslim leaders just as predominantly Christian nations will choose Christians. Choosing Shariah Law is another issue.

I hope you aren't one of those people that thinks our President Obama is a secret Muslim.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So than Algeria is not a democracy. The dictators of these countries are Muslim, and all of them have Islam as the official state religion, even "moderate" countries like UAE, Jordan, Turkey etc. follow Islamic law, some of them just enforce it harder than others. What do you think happens when Islamic parties triumph in these elections? they never have elections again.

I don't consider a 19 year 'emergency' suspension of democratic elections to meet the test for democracy, no.

Just as we couldn't elect a non-christian to the White House in America today, you're not going to see a non-muslim elected President in a predominantly Muslim country.

You forget the US was once friends with the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Do you want me to start naming all the dictators the US has supported?

The USA has done what countries will always do: pick the lesser evil over the greater evil to oppose the greater evil. It is not the same thing as "support".

Why do you think we couldn't elect a non-Christian to the White House?

At this time, we wouldn't elect a non-Christian as President. An atheist could not be elected as POTUS. Christians have enormous political power, especially in the GOP. It took Americans 232 years to elect a non-white president. We haven't elected a woman yet. I doubt we'd elect a gay or lesbian.

We don't care if we support dictators as long as it in our 'strategic interests'.

 

[logical4u]

Malaysia

It has a majority of muslims, but is not a 'muslim nation'.

Wikipedia

"The Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion and makes Islam the official religion. According to the Population and Housing Census 2000 figures, approximately 60.4% of the population practiced Islam of which only the Sunni branch is allowed;[158] 19.2% Buddhism; 9.1% Christianity; 6.3% Hinduism; and 2.6% practice Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions. The remainder was accounted for by other faiths, including animism, folk religion, and Sikhism while 0.8% either reported having no religion or did not provide any information."

I didn't say Malaysia was a Muslim theocracy. It's a Muslim nation in the same way that people say the US is a Christian nation.

I'm completely opposed to theocracy of any kind, Muslim or Christian. Did you know the Queen is the official head of the Church of England?

9 Roman Catholic nations in Europe and South America
4 Eastern Orthodox in Europe
4 Lutheran in Europe
1 Anglican....in England, of course!
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fourteen Dalai Lamas ruled over Tibet before it was lost to the Chinese invasion.

I don't care about those religions. Their leaders are not calling for the destruction of our nation and the SLAUGHTER of our people. The islamic national leaders are. Those nations are run by muslims for muslims. They are arguably the worst nations on the face of the earth as far as .... your term human rights goes. You keep claiming how great this religion is, and some of keep asking you: where is the proof? Ideally, a country that is populated by a huge percentage of muslims where the the leader is muslim would theoretically be the best place on earth to live, where others would look to and beg to join that 'religion of peace'. That has not happened and is not happening. There is a serious problem. You don't want to discuss the problem.

You are like someone that is told, if we don't clean this mess up, it will destroy everything we own, and you, focus on a clean area and say, lets just stay here, it is clean. You are told, it will not stay that way, and you are needed to help the destruction. You go sit in your clean area while other people are working frantically trying to stop the mess. When it reaches you, you exclaim: why didn't you tell me it was this bad! Please stop being politically correct and look at the facts. Shariah law and islamic extremists are a mess, and it is getting very close. Will you help stop it, or will you sit back and allow it to destroy everything?