Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Democrats want to close Gitmo AND move the prisoners HERE!

LINK: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2E2A4850-3048-5C12-00A7B247454E775D


Key House Democrats plan to insist the Pentagon shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are contemplating the relocation of many of the 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast -- including Quantico, Va., and Charleston, S.C.
"It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Guantanamo," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who's heading an investigation of the facility for the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
"It will enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees," he added.

OK, let's gut this dipwad. First, he wants to move the prisoners out of Gitmo. Shut it down. And not just move them out, but move these koranimals, stateside. Did I miss a frickin meeting? Isn't the purpose of Gitmo to keep these animals far enough from our shores that we're not in danger, but close enough to be questioned before any other attacks hit?

Yeah, I think it was, Jim. But this Democrap and his idiot pals think closing Gitmo is a great idea.

Why? To enhance our reputation with a bunch of transparent suck ups overseas, that's right, the Eurotrash. But probably their Islamo pals. The Euros wanna chastise us about prisons, they're the respective lands that fashioned the guillotine, the iron maiden, concentration camps, and Gestapo tactics. Screw em. The Germans let our Red Army Faction terrorists on parole, hoping they'll be reformed. However, if anyone slams a Muslim they're to be imprisoned for life, next to the SS camp guard serving life without parole. Europe is insane and they want to take us with them.

And Jim Moran and Jack Murtha and the stupid asses are willing to hand us over. Bet they're moving out of the US once the terrorists move in here.....Oh wait, they probably are here, thanks to porous borders..... thanks Democrats.


After two trips to Guantanamo, Moran told The Politico that he's recommending Congress cut funding to the detention center at the end of summer 2008. The men held there should then be released, tried or moved to the United States, he said.
A Democratic official involved in developing the Guantanamo strategy said the Democrats, who control the new Congress, expect Republicans to object to bringing the detainees onto U.S. soil because their attorneys would surely argue they were entitled to myriad new rights.

A myriad of rights? Wow, this is more Helsinki Syndrome than taking a ticket to Lapland. These morons want us to move the terrorists here, not for rights only. Try escape attempts and a prison break. Who wants these turds next door to their home? Not us. But the Democrats know better, so we don't matter....... By the way, thanks to the stupid voters who brought us this Congress and this Pandora's Box.....

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Democrats are planning hearings in April or May to "build a record" that closing Guantanamo would be beneficial and that it would be legal, as well as logistically feasible, to bring its detainees to the United States. The hearings would start with panels of lawyers, some of whom are convinced the plan is workable and some of whom represent detainees now at Guantanamo.
And to make the measure more palatable to Republicans, Moran said he would suggest the detainees be transferred to military bases that would allow them to be tried in federal courts under the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Republicans certainly could not consider that a mollycoddling, liberal bastion," Moran said. "The 4th Circuit is as conservative as you get. But the whole world would see that the United States stands for the rule of law. And I think the high-value targets would be shown to be people who undoubtedly should be detained and prosecuted.
"But you've got to distinguish among these people," he said. "We have to prove they actually did something that was designed to hurt American citizens."

Have to prove? Prove that these 7th Century animals want us dead? Check out Al Jazeera you stupid fuck! Prove they conspire? Check out their blogs, check out their records. Check out the fact they were apprehended firing fucking weapons at our troops and plotting to kill civilians. Jim Moran, we got a nice section of rope and a tree branch for you. Swing you bastard! Swing!

And don't give us that shit about conservative courts. You'll make sure the terrorists cases go to the most liberal fucking judge Clinton appointee. And when they're out, supposedly finding Allah and peaceful you'll let em go.

Count the days til this backfires and we lose lives.....


A senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was puzzled by the Democrats' frequent discussion of closing Guantanamo.
"While we want to bring these guys to trial as quickly as possible, where do Democrats believe we should keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot?" the official asked. "Which American city will they choose to place America's most wanted terrorists?"
The Democratic official said the plan would be to relocate the terrorists to military brigs that have suitable courtrooms. In addition to Quantico and Charleston, many could go to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., or to the Norfolk Naval Station, which has four courtrooms.

High populated areas, soon to be home for hundreds of terrorists. I got a solution. Truck those bastards out to Jack Murtha's house, or Jim Moron's townhome in DC. You wanna move em? Let these terrorists bunk with you. Then when you're holding a flashlight and a fucking gun like Borat being scared of Jews, then you'll see the terrorists NEEDED to be kept away from our shore. Of course it may be hard for you to scream after a practitioner of the religion of peace saws through your neck and removes your fucking head!

Still other possibilities include the Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, S.C., and Fort Gordon, Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, all in Georgia.

Here's a better sight, the Nuclear Proving Grounds in NEvada, and we can light one off for old times sake! The libs will wanna keep track of terrorists. They suggest chip implants, GPS trackers. I have a foolproof way of keeping track of these goatfuckers. Burial plots! Toe tags! Kill them before they kill us. If not, don't fuckin cry when we get hit worse than ever! What thinking man wants this? Who?

In the flush of taking control of the House in January, Democrats had talked about pushing to close Guantanamo immediately, perhaps as part of the emergency wartime funding bill that is now pending. But they had trouble settling on a strategy for that bill and now are considering a shutdown directive in the overall defense appropriations bill for the 2008 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The prison camp at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay has been a constant headache for the Bush administration, which has been accused of holding innocent people there indefinitely. Hunger strikes, suicides and accusations of inappropriate interrogations have plagued the facility, home to what the White House calls some of the world's most dangerous terrorists.
U.S. allies abroad have complained about Guantanamo as well. And the president has said that he would like to close it down but that there is no other place to hold the detainees.

Inappropriate interrogations? You think if reversed these savages would bat an eyelash before holding a blow torch your feet to make you talk? Or maybe attach them roach clips to your nads before frying em up? Or they'll just cut your head off with a dull fuckin sarissan sword. Yeah, yeah, improper interrogations, suicides, hunger strikes.

Let em fuckin starve! They starved their own and lived pretty good. Suicides? By all means, let em, and make sure they endure some pain. Ask those Israelis who lost arms and legs and eyes how bad they feel for some terrorist with a bellyache. Ask that 9/11 survivor how teary they are if some terrorist shitbag takes himself out of the fuckin gene pool! Not very, unless you're the Jersey Girls or some idjit who forgot about 9/11 already.


Asked about the furor that could erupt in local communities chosen to receive the detainees, Moran noted that the brigs were secure and that most of the detainees had not "been involved in any combat."
"Many of them have never engaged in any act of violence," Moran said. "Some of them hold beliefs that are anathema to ours, but we have a tradition that we don't punish people for their beliefs but rather for their actions."

Oh, never fired a shot in anger! Awwww. Jim wants to give these sheep rapists a chance to fire that shot in anger. They're in combat, they support the jihadists. No less guilty than the Nazis who clapped when Jews were gassed, but then acted repenant when the Nuremburg Tribunual had a rope around their fuckin necks!

No act of violence? Yeah, I suppose all these terrorists are peaceful little mooselimbs who don't wanna kill anyone. Except if you're a Jew. Or a Christian. Or a moderate Muslim. Or British, or American, or anyone who's not a radical Islamist piece of shit, or some coddler like Jim Moran.

Don't worry Jim, you'll be the last these bastards kill after their take over......

Thanks Democrats. Thanks for another nail in America's coffin.

16 Comments:

  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Ya see, Nick, these guys were just up in the bleechers watchin' the game and along came these US soldiers and snatched them up and shipped them off to Gitmo. One of them was the popcorn vendor. You just can't watch a good war these days without being taken away by the stupid and uneducated losers we call the US Military. What the fuck were we thinkin'?

     
  • At 3:11 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    The government has admitted that a lot of Gitmo detainees were taken in error or sold for the bounty. And ask the Uighurs about their fate. This is a great udea and I support the Democrats who proposed it.

     
  • At 6:00 AM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Horseshit moonshine, stop drinking from your still. These morons we caught are terrorists, pure and simple. Go room with them, or invite to your house. Til then, shut it.....

    Bystanders? Yeah, cheering bystanders. Some of em, like John Walker Lindh, were bystanders with Kalashnikovs. Don't give me that pile of crap.

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger ludlow said…

    I got a solution. Truck those bastards out to Jack Murtha's house, or Jim Moron's townhome in DC. You wanna move em? Let these terrorists bunk with you. Then when you're holding a flashlight and a fucking gun like Borat being scared of Jews, then you'll see the terrorists NEEDED to be kept away from our shore.

    a) Mooney isn't wrong - yet at least. Seeing on how there aren't charges against them, our country has been fucking up with that one for oh going on 6 years here. It's been a long overdrawn argument and if you somehow think the US is in the 'right' for this one?? I don't have a problem imprisoning people, but it's our responsibility as a country to incarcerate on charges, or not to at all.

    b) Regarding your desire to NOT want to move them. Perhaps I'm confused why you don't want them in OUR backyard, but would prefer them to remain in Cuba's backyard (against the wishes of the Cuban public I might add). Again, just another irresponsible American point. If we want to call them criminals, then WE need to incarcerate them on OUR soil IMO.

    So - two quick changes:

    Charge them with an actual crime, put them in OUR jail, and allow the system to work as it does.

     
  • At 11:37 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Nonsense, Ludlow. They were taken off the battlefield, or in the course of war, they will cool their heels in an American prison just as German soldiers were in WWII. If there are truly totally innocent people there, they are not likely to suffer any serious physical harm, except by their own actions or their fellow prisoners. They can seek damages after the war, should it end before they do.

     
  • At 8:45 PM, Blogger ludlow said…

    If there are truly totally innocent people there, they are not likely to suffer any serious physical harm, except by their own actions or their fellow prisoners.

    a) I don't think you can support the claim that noone will/would be hurt.

    b) There should be a 0% chance that an innocent person is sitting in an American prison - NOT on US soil mind you - with no pending charges against them. I really can't think of a worse comment to have to speak out against.

    They can seek damages after the war, should it end before they do.

    I'm not sure I should even dignify the second part of that sentence. But on the first point of it - we've already spoken about this sort of thing before. Naturally we disagree - but this is exactly ONE of the MANY reasons I disagree with the simple rhetoric of this so called war on terror.

    The 'war on terror' will NEVER be over. It's like the war on drugs. It won't end - it's just a catchy statement that the ignorant of the country are easily swayed by.

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Well, there's ignorant and then there's ignorant. Considering the rhetoric of the people we fight, and their consistent attempts to back up their talk, there is little that is more ignorant than believing fighting them is not necessary. We will never see an end to the war on crime, either. Should we throw in the towel there as well? Or maybe you think we can negotiate our way out of dealing with the criminally inclined? The same goes for terrorists. If you want to weep buckets over a few innocents who get caught up in the arrests, just be glad they are not among the collateral damage experienced in all wars. Be glad they haven't been murdered by their own who think doing so furthers their cause.

    This isn't a fucking game. These sons of bitches are deadly serious about their intentions and they have been since Muhammed pretended to have his first revelation. Their message and goals have remained unchanged since around 640AD. Ignorance is believing that the freedom or "rights" of a few potential innocents outweighs the safety or security of a single soldier or citizen in a time of war. Ignorance is having an irrational concern for potential innocents for whom Gimo represents a decided upgrade in their living coniditions. Ignorance is not acknowleging innocents have been released and some of them were found on the battlefield again.

     
  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger ludlow said…

    We will never see an end to the war on crime, either. Should we throw in the towel there as well?

    Good point. NO - we shouldn't. And it only exemplifies my point that we need to use caution with what is going on now. There is a reason that criminals have to be treated in the way that they do. Sometimes it's unfortunate when a bad one gets away, but the interest is in protecting the rights of people who deserve to be protected. And as you acknowledged in the analogy, neither of these 'wars' is going to end - it's worded that way thanks to premier Bush (in this case).

    If you want to weep buckets over a few innocents who get caught up in the arrests, just be glad they are not among the collateral damage experienced in all wars.

    Again - NOT a fucking war. This 'war on terror' will go on for decades - just like our 'war on crime' just like our 'war on drugs'. You CAN NOT end something that is as ubiquitous as terror, or crime, or drugs. The only thing you can eventually do is let it go - and god only know we're far too pompous to let anything in this country go. So - again - yes I worry for how the future will go in that respect.

    And in regards to your entire 2nd paragraph - I will not try to determine what is and is not ignorant. But you tell me what moral flaw is displayed when your country and it's people scream freedom for ALL from the top of lady liberty - and then are willing to ignore it for SOME because they're just a collateral accessory to a war with a rhetoric-driven enemy.

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Ludlow,

    First off, I didn't acknowledge that the war will never end. I was responding to your statement. But you also make the mistake of assuming that though the expression "war on terror" is used to refer to the overall fight, that no one has a better handle on just what or who the enemy is. I concede that the possibility exists, but don't make any wagers. In any case, dealing with attacks, or the prevention thereof, still is important.

    Of COURSE it's a war! It might not be war as we've known war to be in the past, but it's war as it is fought by the scumbags and we have to deal with it as it is. The prisoners at Gitmo were taken during the fighting of this war and are alleged to have taken part as an enemy combatant. I question your comment about "letting it go". What does that mean? I don't see that a responsible government should "let it go" if it means not battling terrorism. The consequences are what we've seen in 2001. That's what letting it go has done so far. Unless you meant something else by that comment.

    There is NO moral flaw until a prisoner is determined to be the innocent soul you want to believe is still imprisoned at Gitmo. As stated, many have already been released. It only makes sense that those who remain are less likely to be "innocent" or they'd have been released as well. Our current method of waging war has been one of sensitivity to those who are not engaged in the battle, to our and victory's detriment I would add. To believe that our people are callously retaining those who should be released is a baseless and biased belief. That would be biased against our own forces.

    I would also like clarification on the term "rhetoric-driven enemy". Are you implying that they are just all talk? That they have no real intention of seeing through their stated plans? That is naivete of the worst kind. You need to pay closer attention.

    Finally, not being willing to try to determine what is or isn't ignorant is a major problem in the Western world these days. I have no problem making those determinations any more than I have a problem with determining evil when I see it. It's more than clear to the enemy what they think is good and evil, what is smart or ingnorant. No problem can be dealt with without first acknowledging what the problem is, what it's called, what it will do, how it should be attacked.

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger ludlow said…

    Rather than respond to each piece - let me just try to put it all together as I was trying to mean it.

    I'll start with a few questions (and they're not jokes).

    1) How do we end the war on drugs? Or, at what point does the war on drugs in this country cease to be called a war?

    Is it when there ARE no more drugs? Perhaps it's when people finally all lose the desire to do drugs? Perhaps it's after a slow process of legalizing consumption of drugs? Perhaps we finally concede that we handle drug addictions wrongly in this country and imprisoning people doesn't seem to work? There are many others I'm sure you can think of too.

    It may seem nonsensical to you, but seriously, how does the 'war on drugs' end?

    The rhetoric-driven comment (which I've said before) is similar to the above point. How do we end the 'war on terror'? What makes terror stop?

    Additionally, I've done drugs, was I an enemy of the state at that point. I still support a number of drugs, is the war waged against me today?

    You once told me that we use the word 'terrorist' b/c it would be politically incorrect to say what we're really fighting against (I'm paraphrasing you of course). But I disagree with the simplicity of that.

    I believe that though there IS a real enemy in front of us here and we DO need to fight that enemy. BUT that we've also created a pseudo-fictional enemy on top of the real one. The fictional one being clever rhetoric.

    If I may exaggerate to deliver my point: we could kill every single Islamic radical on the planet - but b/c we're fighting a war on terror, and not a war against Islamic radicals, the war would STILL not end. Terror is a ubiquitous concept - therefore, technically a ubiquitous enemy.

    The 'letting it go' wasn't meant to suggest that we should let it go, but rather to point the obvious out that 'we will not' - that's how our country works. But recognizing that is still important in the case of what I am saying.

    So, I return to the beginning, how does the war on drugs end? ...for that matter, how was a 'war on terror' end?

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Mooneyguy said…

    Actually, MA, most of those at Gitmo were handed over for bounties and were not captured on the battlefield. Further, hundreds have been sent home and released. How dangerous were they again?

     
  • At 10:44 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    "Actually, MA, most of those at Gitmo were handed over for bounties and were not captured on the battlefield."

    Links, please.

    "Further, hundreds have been sent home and released."

    As I've said. In fact, I believe that over half of those originally incarcerated have been released. Some have been picked up again for actions against. You want numbers? I ain't got none. It's besides the point discussed.

     
  • At 11:09 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Ludlow,

    It seems a superfluous argument. What does it matter what it is called? And why the concern about when it will end? I pray it ends today if not sooner. I fear it may last several generations. However you prefer to name it is fine by me. You can call it the War on Islamic Assholes for all I care. That's what it is anyhow. In fact, the truth is that it is a war on Islam. That's the only way it can be viewed due to the fact that Islam is not merely a religion but a political movement as well. They have a clear agenda to convert, or "revert" since they believe we are all Muslim from birth and don't all know it, everyone to Islam in whatever way possible, or kill those who don't, or die trying. It's just that simple.

    But to say so brings about violent rebuke from adherents of this so-called "religion of peace". No one wants to risk that. The Western World tip-toes around this blatantly obvious fact. The West has gone soft and unwilling to defend itself against the Islamic spread. We have the guns, but not the will. The Islamists have nothing BUT will. They will win if this does not change. This is where your concern should lie. Not in what to name the war.

    When will it end? It's been going on since the mid 600'sAD. It will not stop until they have achieved their goals at our expense, or, we drop the charade and get serious. Back in WWII, we bombed Germany and Japan and many civilians died. Germany and Japan surrendered. What's the lesson here? Kick ass until the PEOPLE no longer want their asses kicked. Dictate terms and keep kickin' ass until terms are accepted unconditionally. Perhaps at some point, the so-called "moderate" Muslims will capitulate and turn on those of their own who insist on domination. They'll need to erase those passages of their Koran that are used to incite the violence. When that happens, then it will end. That's how bad it is.

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger ludlow said…

    It seems a superfluous argument. What does it matter what it is called?

    I disagree. It matters b/c it requires a significant commitment from the people of the US, from the soldiers of the US, and from the government of the US.

    Additionally, it matters b/c the rest of the world is forced to make choices based upon our actions. It's unfortunate that case exists, but it does.

    I've heard nothing more than Bush's bullshit response of us 'withdrawing when the job is done' (and other equally weak comments) for 6 years now. So again, it matters immensely b/c you can say ANYTHING you want, so long as you can't actually quantify it.

    He says [in so many words] we'll be at war until we win. But just like the war on drugs analogy I presented, what does it take to win terror? You can't - just like you can't 'win' the war on drugs or anything else is conceptual rather than tangible.

    That's the only way it can be viewed due to the fact that Islam is not merely a religion but a political movement as well.

    I've gone into this many times before and so I'm not going to antagonize you or the point, but we're NOT so different. YES, we have different rules NOW, but you consider American history and it's dictatorship under Christianity and tell me it's not rooted in the same way. Sure we don't burn heretics in public anymore, but level of drama aside, can you honestly tell me our political system isn't STRONGLY driven by one dominant faith?

    They have a clear agenda to convert, or "revert" since they believe we are all Muslim from birth and don't all know it, everyone to Islam in whatever way possible, or kill those who don't, or die trying. It's just that simple.

    Again - Christians believe everyone is born in the eyes of God as well. And as there is only ONE god, the belief is that ALL people are created in the eyes of God and that Jesus was sent to die for them all. Again - I don't believe in ANY of that, but it's the same belief system here. You're just on the opposite side. And on the latter point, I agree that we kill significantly LESS than we did before, but I can give you a thousands references to us killing in the name of Christ.

    The West has gone soft and unwilling to defend itself against the Islamic spread.

    ...or perhaps the East has grown tired of the Christian agenda?

    an interjection:
    Islam, just for clarification, is a western religion. But I obviously do know what you're referring to.

    When will it end? It's been going on since the mid 600'sAD. It will not stop until they have achieved their goals at our expense...

    So again, I was trying to avoid dates here - but since you brought up 600AD - first thing that comes to mind a few hundred later are the Crusades? So once more, same concept, different side of the fence.

    My perpetuating question is: Why is one wrong and not the other? (and I hope you're answer is not simply centered on the side you happen to be playing for).

    They'll need to erase those passages of their Koran that are used to incite the violence.

    MA, I generally have very nice back and forth arguments with you - but come on man, that's the biggest line of bullshit you've ever written. The Koran - EXACTLY like the Bible, is 100% open to interpretation and both are FULL of fucked up passages (depending on the reader).

    You can use the Bible to defend ANYTHING you do, just like SOME people can use the Koran to defend what they're doing.

    I hate this notion of Christians somehow being better than Muslims and moreover that THEY need to change. BOTH of the religions have fucked everyone in world up the ass twenty six ways from Tuesday. It's nothing more than the most glorified game of 'my dick is bigger than yours'. Find me the ONE real difference between the two - I am SO all ears.

     
  • At 11:08 PM, Blogger Marshall Art said…

    Ludlow,

    I'll start at the end,

    "Find me the ONE real difference between the two."

    I'll do better. Read "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer, or "Unveiling Islam" by Ergun Kaner or the many fine articles in the archives of AmericanThinker.com, or any of the many books that draw the very comparisons you requested between the two religions.

    People like to point to the Crusades as some kind of equivalency, but as Spencer re-iterates, the Crusades were in response to the very same kind of Islamic fanaticism we see today. (A better comparison might be the Inquisition, though, like the Salem witch trials, were very limited in both the numbers killed and the length of the era. Very short in historic terms.)

    From the top, whatever we call the conflict really DOESN'T matter, because it isn't really the conflict that is causing the rift between supporters and opposers, but the fact that Bush is heading our efforts. Of course this doesn't hold for every opposer, but plays a large part for much of the opposition. It also doesn't matter to the rest of the world for much the same reasons, but with the twist that much of the rest of the world has gone off the deep end in regards to how they should respond to Islamic fanaticism. They are far more sick in their belief that being nice will win them over. It ain't so.

    The next point is a little vague, but if you're referring to the Iraq campaign, Bush has been quite clear on the goal, which is, when the Iraqi people can handle things without our help. By all indications as well as reports from the Multi-National Forces in Iraq spokesman Gen. Caldwell, solid progress continues to be made. One can whine about the speed of the progress, but one cannot demand that it maintains a given speed as such expectations are naive.

    If you were referring to the overall war on terror, I would agree that, like the war on crime, it has an indefinite end and may be ongoing beyond our time. I imagine that in time, the choice of whether to use military or law enforcement will be situational.

    Indeed we are VERY different, Muslim and Christian. Miles apart. As I've stated earlier, the despotic nature of some Christians in our country's history were isolated incidents of limited duration and not in the least bit widespread across what was the country at the time. Thus, it was hardly representative of either Christian practice or teaching and a poor comparison to that which has spand 1400 years relatively unchanged. (I say "relatively" only to be kind) So you have tiny bits of Christianity's 2000 year history being presented unjustly as the face of Christianity, and then offer it as proof of being the same as 1400 years of Islam. So here's another difference between the two: Christianity was spread by people who worshipped in secret, evangelized at great personal risk, asking for nothing as compensation, and were persecuted horribly for their troubles. Muslims spread their religion at the point of a sword, enslaving those who they did not murder, and did the persecuting. There isn't a history scholar worth his salt that would dispute this.

    Now, you complain that perhaps our political system is heavily influenced by one particular faith, but fail to acknowledge that it does not prevent the proliferation of other faiths at the same time. Our government is still a secular one. But in those countries where Sharia rules, such freedoms do not exist. If other faiths are allowed, they must not manifest themselves with new churches or symbols of their faith and they are taxed heavily and have far fewer rights than the Muslims. Many find it easier to simply convert to Islam.

    Of course Christians believe in Christ and that He is the key to salvation. The difference that those like yourself should bear in mind is that there is evidence for our faith that doesn't exist for any other. In other words, for those with the courage to look, there can be found support for the truth of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, that is more compelling than anything about any other character from ancient times. I'm talking about the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document. The same cannot be said for Islam in the least. (You may not believe the evidence if you ever decide to investigate, but the fact that nothing compares is still compelling.) To an unbeliever, its easy to see no difference without studying the right stuff. But its there and its night and day.

    There is no reason why the East should grow tired of the "Christian agenda" since it always ends with choice. All are free to disbelieve as believe. There is never anything malevolent about the "Christian agenda".

    Again, the Crusades would never have taken place without the cries for help from those lands being overun and oppressed by the Islamic invaders. They were in response to the fanaticism. And it is in that that the difference between the two lies. The "wrong" is the Islamic oppression. The "not wrong" is the rush to aid the oppressed by the Crusaders.

    Now, my biggest line of bullshit is actually the largest truth. I don't know if will ever happen, but without it happening, I think it's far less likely that Islam can co-exist peacefully and charitably with the rest of the world. The reason is, as you said, interpretation. The problem is, that they are interpreting the Koran and Hadith perfectly when they, for example, chop off heads or hands or beat their women, etc. They are not stretching and twisting words as liberal Christians and others have done with the Bible. They are doing what the Koran actually teaches. If anyone is mis-interpreting the Koran, it's the so-called moderates. With the Bible, its just the opposite. No where is there any call for Christians to engage in murderous behavior. Ever. What is often used is from stories that have a specific and limited scope related to the story itself. But not a mandate to pursue such a course for the rest of us. Those who say the two religions are two ways of saying the same things are woefully ignorant of the truth. However, if you believe you know of a "fucked up" passage from the Bible, feel free to present it and I'll do my best to clear up any confusion. I haven't seen one that's hard to explain, and I don't have to contort myself to do it either.

    So here's a final difference for ya: There have been those who have done nasty things and claimed to have Scriptural support. They are wrong or liars and it can be easily proven. There are now many who do nasty things and claim they have support from the Koran and/or Hadith. They are NOT lying and it, too, can be easily proven. With Christianity, it has been a Christian who may have fucked some people, but with Islam, it is Islam that has fucked some people. The sooner people understand the true differences between the major religions, the sooner they'll understand why people like Bush insist on fighting for as long as it takes to repel their intentions.

     
  • At 10:41 PM, Blogger graciela said…

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


    Joannah

    http://windscreensite.com

     

Post a Comment

<< Home