The disturbing view of Muslims in the US

[hazlnut]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

You just gave us a tiny glimpse into the mind of a racist.

You pigs actually believe the oppression is the fault of the oppressed -- like the rape victim was asking for it.

 

[Unkotare]

You just gave us a tiny glimpse into the mind of a racist......

You would know, being a racist with a tiny mind yourself.

 

[MisterBeale]

Hey, if FDR could make concentration camps in a war against the Japanese, I'm sure a conservative president could get American support to build concentration camps in a war against Islam. ....

That scumbag fdr wasn't a conservative, and we are not at war with a religion.

Only democrat presidents have ever built concentration camps in this country. It fits their ideology well.

 

[bripat9643]

No that wasn't a mistake. That government was no better than the current government.

It doesn't matter a **** what it was, we had no right to overthrow it.

Ann Coulter - June 10, 2009 - WELCOME BACK, CARTER​

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before the CIA became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews in pink pajamas while lying in bed. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh

. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.​

No nation has the right, ever, to overthrow the government of another nation. Now you know.

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

 

[Mr Natural]

Have you ever noticed, whenever you go into a gas station or convenience store, the clerk (almost always a Moslem of some sort) is almost almost always on the phone?

I suspect they're plotting a Jihad against us.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It doesn't matter a **** what it was, we had no right to overthrow it.

Ann Coulter - June 10, 2009 - WELCOME BACK, CARTER​

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before the CIA became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews in pink pajamas while lying in bed. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh

. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.​

No nation has the right, ever, to overthrow the government of another nation. Now you know.

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

We defeated them, we did not overthrow them. They are entirely different.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ann Coulter - June 10, 2009 - WELCOME BACK, CARTER​

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before the CIA became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews in pink pajamas while lying in bed. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.​

No nation has the right, ever, to overthrow the government of another nation. Now you know.

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

We defeated them, we did not overthrow them. They are entirely different.

Tell that to the Nazis or the Japanese Imperialists.

Unconditional surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No nation has the right, ever, to overthrow the government of another nation. Now you know.

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

We defeated them, we did not overthrow them. They are entirely different.

Tell that to the Nazis or the Japanese Imperialists.

Unconditional surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AKA, defeated, not overthrown by the CIA because we wanted their oil.

 

[bripat9643]

Ann Coulter - June 10, 2009 - WELCOME BACK, CARTER​

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before the CIA became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews in pink pajamas while lying in bed. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh

. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.​

No nation has the right, ever, to overthrow the government of another nation. Now you know.

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

We defeated them, we did not overthrow them. They are entirely different.

ROFL! So we didn't "defeat" Saddam?

Do you really think you're fooling anyone with this lame-assed shit?

 

[bripat9643]

So we had no right to overthrow Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?

We defeated them, dumbass, in a world war. We did not overthrow them because they were taking back what belonged to them in the first place. It was war.

In other words, we overthrew them. You're just quibbling about how it was done. What did we "take back" from Germany that belonged to us?

We defeated them, we did not overthrow them. They are entirely different.

Tell that to the Nazis or the Japanese Imperialists.

Unconditional surrender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AKA, defeated, not overthrown by the CIA because we wanted their oil.

So was Saddam "defeated" or "overthrown?"

 

[Freewill]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Firstly. Your point.

Muslims are responsible for the image the US has of them. Yes, in part this is true. However not ALL MUSLIMS are responsible for this. Some Muslims are. Why should ALL Muslims be responsible for this image that some have made.

Secondly, Bush helped to make this image, he helped to spread this image.

The United States has had problems with Muslims since Thomas Jefferson. It's not a new thing.

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

 

[Freewill]

What did BUSH do to cause this image? Not all Muslims are terrorist but damn near all terrorists are Muslim, today.

Consider Obama's drone program against brown Muslims, does he get a bit of responisbility.

The left wing whined that after 9/11 there would be riots and persecution of Muslims, never happened. Even after the Boston bombing very little. The left did inflate the ground zero Mosque BS into a racist thing but that is just what liberals do.

The image Muslims have is well earned and them really doing very little about those Muslims who preach hate only adds to the image.

Yeah, many terrorists are Muslims. Hardly surprising really. There are lots of Muslim places that have suffered from invasions from the west. If it were Americans fighting back, you'd say they have balls, but Muslims fight back and... oh, they're just bad. It's all how you want to perceive something really.

Obama is president of the US. He takes responsibility for what has happened, however he didn't start the whole thing and her certainly didn't escalate things like Bush did.

And then you go and expect Muslims to be in the news every day condemning every Muslim terrorist act, but Christians don't have to excuse all the crap that Bush pulled huh?

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

 

[Coyote]

What did BUSH do to cause this image? Not all Muslims are terrorist but damn near all terrorists are Muslim, today.

Consider Obama's drone program against brown Muslims, does he get a bit of responisbility.

The left wing whined that after 9/11 there would be riots and persecution of Muslims, never happened. Even after the Boston bombing very little. The left did inflate the ground zero Mosque BS into a racist thing but that is just what liberals do.

The image Muslims have is well earned and them really doing very little about those Muslims who preach hate only adds to the image.

Yeah, many terrorists are Muslims. Hardly surprising really. There are lots of Muslim places that have suffered from invasions from the west. If it were Americans fighting back, you'd say they have balls, but Muslims fight back and... oh, they're just bad. It's all how you want to perceive something really.

Obama is president of the US. He takes responsibility for what has happened, however he didn't start the whole thing and her certainly didn't escalate things like Bush did.

And then you go and expect Muslims to be in the news every day condemning every Muslim terrorist act, but Christians don't have to excuse all the crap that Bush pulled huh?

Muslims aren't just killing Americans. In India they are killing Hindus. In Africa they are killing Christians. In Malaysia they are killing Buddhists. Muslims kill anyone who isn't a Muslim. If you look at where all the conflict and terrorism is in the world, it's wherever Muslims are found.

Blaiming Muslim violence on America is propaganda. It's a bullshit.

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You stated invasions was one of the reasons that Muslims are pissed off at the West. I pointed out, correctly that US troops PROTECTING his homeland was one of the issues that Osama was pissed off.

His words.

"(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures."

And again with Afghanistan. We were HELPING them against an Invasion and an Occupation and Genocide. That is hardly cause to hate US, as you suggested with your "invasion" reason.

So there are many reasons Muslims can be pissed off at the West. Are you surprised?

In Afghanistan you were helping "them", who is "them"?

Also, many countries need help against groups that threaten their country, the US doesn't always go in. Why Afghanistan?

Also, anyone with a computer and internet can find out about the Powell Doctrine.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

So if the US invades anyone, helps anyone, does anything in another country with troops you know that the first they consided is whether US interests have been threatened. Not those of anyone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

If I did not already have the perfect signature... THIS would be my new signature, as it defines the mental disorder that defines the Ideological Left: PERFECTLY!

Why? What's not true about this?

 

[bripat9643]

You stated invasions was one of the reasons that Muslims are pissed off at the West. I pointed out, correctly that US troops PROTECTING his homeland was one of the issues that Osama was pissed off.

His words.

"(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures."

And again with Afghanistan. We were HELPING them against an Invasion and an Occupation and Genocide. That is hardly cause to hate US, as you suggested with your "invasion" reason.

So there are many reasons Muslims can be pissed off at the West. Are you surprised?

In Afghanistan you were helping "them", who is "them"?

Also, many countries need help against groups that threaten their country, the US doesn't always go in. Why Afghanistan?

Also, anyone with a computer and internet can find out about the Powell Doctrine.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

So if the US invades anyone, helps anyone, does anything in another country with troops you know that the first they consided is whether US interests have been threatened. Not those of anyone else.

When did Obama follow the Powell Doctrine?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly. Your point.

Muslims are responsible for the image the US has of them. Yes, in part this is true. However not ALL MUSLIMS are responsible for this. Some Muslims are. Why should ALL Muslims be responsible for this image that some have made.

Secondly, Bush helped to make this image, he helped to spread this image.

The United States has had problems with Muslims since Thomas Jefferson. It's not a new thing.

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

9/11 MASSIVELY INTENSIFIED it.

WTF is wrong with you morons?

9/11 was committed by a few Muslims. 1 billion Muslims and a dozen or so Muslims do something bad, does this mean ALL Muslims did something. However had 9/11 happened and Bush not gone out of his way to vilify ALL Muslims, then things would have been very different.

Obama stopped the vilification of Muslims and things have calmed down a little, but what Bush put in place is difficult to get rid of.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States has had problems with Muslims since Thomas Jefferson. It's not a new thing.

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

9/11 MASSIVELY INTENSIFIED it.

WTF is wrong with you morons?

9/11 was committed by a few Muslims. 1 billion Muslims and a dozen or so Muslims do something bad, does this mean ALL Muslims did something. However had 9/11 happened and Bush not gone out of his way to vilify ALL Muslims, then things would have been very different.

Obama stopped the vilification of Muslims and things have calmed down a little, but what Bush put in place is difficult to get rid of.

Muslims have carried out almost 27,000 deadly terrorists attacks since 9/11. So how many Muslims is "a few?"

Jihad Watch – Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly. Your point.

Muslims are responsible for the image the US has of them. Yes, in part this is true. However not ALL MUSLIMS are responsible for this. Some Muslims are. Why should ALL Muslims be responsible for this image that some have made.

Secondly, Bush helped to make this image, he helped to spread this image.

The United States has had problems with Muslims since Thomas Jefferson. It's not a new thing.

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

And this just seems so convenient for the right. I've made my argument in posts before this, so won't repeat myself.

You take a simplistic view of what happens and then try and pummel it. Often the simplistic view isn't reality.

 

[Freewill]

The United States has had problems with Muslims since Thomas Jefferson. It's not a new thing.

And Muslims have had problems with the west since the west (mostly Britain and France) invaded Africa, India and many other places. No, wait, since the Crusades when Christians marched across (or sailed to) the Middle East and fought people like Saladin.

What's your point?

Yes and Christians are still vilified for it.

You blamed Bush. My point is this has been going on for centuries.

Except when the pope said he believed in global warming then the left suddenly became Catholics. Lol

I blame Bush for massively intensifying the whole thing. Yes, it's been going on for ages, but the difference between 2000 and 2009 when Bush left office are massive. The view of Muslims is incredibly bad after what Bush did.

As for your Pope comment, what?????

Oh BS. The view of Muslims is bad because of what was done on 9/11 nothing Bush did. The view of Muslims is bad because of their demand for a ground zero mosque. The view of Muslims is bad because of crap like this: ISIS leader approves beheading of woman for wedding present – report

And what does the left do, they try and minimize it by trying to make beheading women equal to denying to issue a gay marriage license. There is something definitely wrong with the liberal left.

And this just seems so convenient for the right. I've made my argument in posts before this, so won't repeat myself.

You take a simplistic view of what happens and then try and pummel it. Often the simplistic view isn't reality.

Things in life can be understood simplistically. You know when someone is pulling your leg when they make things complicated.

Bush removing Saddam from power did not make the Muslims look badly, if anything it made Bush and the US look badly, except to the Kurds and all of Iraq's neighbors who were glad to be rid of the ahole.

People see things in sound bites. The Boston bombing, perpetrated by Muslims, that is what they remember and about all they remember. One minute a crowd of Americans is standing there and the next they are killed and wounded because of Muslims.