Religion Of Peace Visits California

[dualstow]

Father of San Bernardino Killer Says Son Was Obsessed With Israel
https://t.co/C7U18xdEsI (HA'ARETZ)

[Kriegsspiel]

That picture is extremely blasphemous!

I have a feeling this one will make your brain explode.

[Reub]

My Imam will not be happy with you
infidels!

[Reub]

What is that supposed to mean?

I notice she's not wearing a full face veil.

Sorry, I thought I was making myself clear.

Obama and Hillary (and others, including some Republicans) made comments in regards to the idea of restricting immigration from Muslim countries, subtly accusing others of bigotry, saying "That's not who we are".

So I'm just throwing it back in their faces.

In my opinion those two people do not represent "American Values" as I have come to know them and should not have been let into the country. It's not "who we are".

Hope that clears my thinking up.

Feel free to call me a bigot, racist, whatever. Don't really care any more.

Can this picture be taken down because it is blasphemous to billions of people?

Think I'm kidding, huh?

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/al-jazeera-p ... liks-face/

[dualstow]

Think I'm kidding, huh?

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/al-jazeera-p ... liks-face/

Uh-oh. I guess I can stop telling my parents that Al Jazeera is an ok channel to watch as long as the news is not about its own Qatar. /not kidding

[Mountaineer]

You may wish to give this a listen - discussion with Dr. Alvin Schmidt:

http://issuesetc.org/2015/12/07/3-presi ... idt-12715/

Bottom line is those who have not read the Quran do not understand what the message is for us "non-Islamics".  How would the intelligencia on this forum propose we deal with the faithful Islamists who have declared war on us?  The current administration strategy seems to be "negotiate and hope they go away", the neocon strategy seems to be "nuke them into oblivion", the left strategy seems to be "no big deal, the climate is more important", the progressive Christian strategy seems to be "turn the other cheek and just love them", the Evangelical Christian strategy seems to be similar to the neocons, the silicon valley strategy seems to be "let me check my iPhone and ask Siri", etc.

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

What would you suggest?

[Mountaineer]

What would you suggest?

I would start by acknowledging we are in a religious war of Islam vs. non-Islam - same song, different verse since 610 AD when Muhammad had his first "revelation".  Until the root problem is identified, there is little hope for an effective solution.  My strategy begins with "call a thing what it is" followed by "effectively protect our citizens from harm" via any means necessary, beginning with mild "I mean what I say steps" and progressing via carefully considered stages to extreme if necessary to prove the bark really does have bite until the problem is eliminated or reduced to insignificant - protecting our citizens is the primary job of government.  And you?

... M

[jafs]

Well, I think your first statement is too simplistic.

There are some radical "Islamists" who by no means represent Islam in a broad sense who want to attack us.  Percentage-wise, they're a very small group of followers of Islam, most of whom have no interest in a "holy war" with us.

Then, I agree we should defend/protect ourselves, but I would seriously question "by any means necessary" - that's the kind of thinking that justifies torturing suspects or nuking whole countries and killing lots of innocent people.

So, I'd say we need to find a way to effectively protect/defend Americans without crossing certain lines - it's harder but more morally defensible in my view.  And part of our strategy to defend ourselves/deter terrorism should be to look at our actions that can be used to justify it, and make sure we're not creating more enemies all the time by doing things that are questionable.

[Mountaineer]

I would further say our political leaders should say that we support those of all religions who endorse the notion that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, including freedom of speech and religion.  Many Muslims fall into this category, although they are probably not truly faithful Muslims - they are probably more like the Christmas and Easter Christians who really are not staunch believers.  We should join hands in alliance with them.  We can support these Muslims in their efforts to reform Islam.  However, we cannot effect that reformation (that would be offensively presumptuous).

Of course, some people oppose our founding ideals, which drive inextricably toward rights-based democracy.  Many of these are Muslims, who rely on portions of the Quran which taken literally rule out the notion of rights-based democracy.  We should fight this perspective in all its manifestations (Islamic or otherwise).  Islam, since it encompases religion/law/social structure as a whole, is not, and will never be, consistent with our founding principles.

By framing the issues as they have, our political leaders have made honest discussion of these issues nearly impossible.  And that's too bad.  In my view, our government's policies ought to stay out of religious issues.  But through our government, we have every right to promote and protect the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and partially enumerated in our Constitution. 

Re. "by any means necessary" should be taken with my staged progression of bite vs. bark and assume that our leaders have a small about of wits about them so as not to go totally overboard with the first shot across the bow.

... Mountaineer

[Reub]

What would you suggest?

Let's leave it for Barack and Hillary to handle. That is always the best policy!

[Reub]

It turns out that these two emissaries of peace and love had taken many pictures of a local high school for some unknown reason. If you have children in school you should be very scared as we now have too many to keep track of and we can't unencrypt their messages! These types would love to hit a nice crowded kindergarten class, a church, a Broadway show, a hospital. You know...to show how much they care. Why should our safety be more important than their right to come in here and help us convert or die?

[Fred]

Why should our safety be more important than their right to come in here and help us convert or die?

I would like to see one of those Jesse Watters interviews on Fox News asking people if the constitution guaranteed people the right to come live in  America regardless of race or religion. Given what you hear from politicians and news people it wouldn't surprised me if they thought so.

[Reub]

I'm sure that they would think so.

Now the news is coming out that the female terrorist actually passed three background checks all of which missed her falsified address and terroristic tendencies on social media. But rest assured, we can let them in because it's the right thing to do and the Feds have our backs.

[Reub]

Obama has made at least 3 speeches on terrorism this week.
Has he finally seen the light? Are Democratic pollsters telling him that the party will be crushed? Does he know of a credible threat before the holidays?
I choose option 2 for sure and think option 3 is a strong possibility.  Option 1 will never happen.

[Mountaineer]

Typical.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/17/4-t ... ernardino/

Snip:  <President Obama will make a pit stop in San Bernardino on Friday to visit the families of the 14 victims who were gunned down by during a terrorist attack on December 2. This means Obama has waited two weeks before visiting the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Worse, he’s not even bothering to go out of his way to mourn the loss of 14 American lives. He’s stopping in San Bernardino on his way to his family’s annual Christmas vacation in Hawaii, which cost taxpayers $16 million last year.>

CHECK THE LINK TO SEE WHAT THE FOUR THINGS WERE THAT WERE MORE IMPORTANT.

... M

[Reub]

Rumor has it that he's about to release a whole bunch of Gitmo terrorists to other countries. Does that show much commitment to fighting terrorists? Oh, I almost forgot. They are a recruiting tool.

[Fred]

Ran across this today on unz.com. 

What Really Happened in San Bernardino?

The only eyewitness identifications that I can find speak of three white men.

Not sure what to make of it, though I certainly sympathize with the last couple of paragraphs.

We need more unofficial investigations. We are not going to get any further official investigation. Case closed. "Move along. There’s nothing to see here."

My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem.

I wholeheartedly agree with the advice about not trusting the first official government report on any thing (and probably not the second either), but I tend to agree with the majority of the comments to the article that this is entering the fruitcake zone. And if you Google the author, Gary North, you will see that he's no stranger there. He was one of the leading promoters of the silly Y2K scare and he's also a Christian Re-constructionist which means he advocates a Theocracy for America, run under "Mosaic" law.

[Libertarian666]

Ran across this today on unz.com. 

What Really Happened in San Bernardino?

The only eyewitness identifications that I can find speak of three white men.

Not sure what to make of it, though I certainly sympathize with the last couple of paragraphs.

We need more unofficial investigations. We are not going to get any further official investigation. Case closed. "Move along. There’s nothing to see here."

My advice: Don’t believe the first official government report. Suspend judgment. Keep snooping. Things are not always what they seem.

I wholeheartedly agree with the advice about not trusting the first official government report on any thing (and probably not the second either), but I tend to agree with the majority of the comments to the article that this is entering the fruitcake zone. And if you Google the author, Gary North, you will see that he's no stranger there. He was one of the leading promoters of the silly Y2K scare and he's also a Christian Re-constructionist which means he advocates a Theocracy for America, run under "Mosaic" law.

Gary North is indeed a fruitcake.

Although that doesn't mean that the Y2K scare was silly. I still don't know why nothing much happened.

[Reub]

The Federal govt wasted tens of millions of dollars over Y2K so it wasn't a total waste.

[Fred]

Gary North is indeed a fruitcake.

Although that doesn't mean that the Y2K scare was silly. I still don't know why nothing much happened.

The world, as we knew it, did come to an end, but the government covered it up.