They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...

What is Qatar and the U.S. doing, letting someone with such poor judgment as to joke about lighting his shoes on fire to bomb an aircraft while on a crowded plane be a diplomat????!!!!

what does that have to do Magicrat's post?

use of multiple question and exclamation marks does not actually mean you are more correct or even correct in the first place.

here, let me show you.

"apples are purple" = false
"apples are purple!!!!!!!" still = false

....And making snide comments don't make right either, clever one. He at least made a valid point. The pant-load from Qatar should never have been on the plane! Political correctness puts everyone's life in jeopardy.

....And making snide comments don't make right either, clever one. He at least made a valid point. The pant-load from Qatar should never have been on the plane! Political correctness puts everyone's life in jeopardy.

So tell me, why shouldn't he have been allowed on the plane on the first place?
What did CL8 say that was valid?
Aren't diplomats allowed to have a sense of humour (mis-placed it may be in this situation).
How did he put people's lives in danger?

I would say that over-reaction also puts people's lives in danger and makes events out of things that aren't really news-worthy.

Flight attendants have plenty to deal with without maggots like this fool. Too bad they couldn't just open the door and throw his raghead out!

Flight attendants have plenty to deal with without maggots like this fool. Too bad they couldn't just open the door and throw his raghead out!

No, flight attendent's jobs include dealing with people like this. Plenty of people have smoked in the john....... and gotten into trouble, but not made the news. Plenty of people also have made (inappropriate) jokes to airline staff, too, and again, have not made the news.

The only difference here is the air marshalls went nuts because this guy was Arabic. Now, I don't blame the marshalls at all, they did what is expected of them. But is this guy had been American, there would have been no sensationalistic news story.

Imo, you and the news media who picked up on this are obviously discriminating against people from the middle east without justification.

Plenty of people have smoked in the john....... and gotten into trouble, but not made the news. Plenty of people also have made (inappropriate) jokes to airline staff, too, and again, have not made the news.

The only difference here is the air marshalls went nuts because this guy was Arabic. Now, I don't blame the marshalls at all, they did what is expected of them. But is this guy had been American, there would have been no sensationalistic news story.

I say bullcrap!
Try joking about bombs on a plane and see what it gets you! Light one up next time you fly. You will find yourself in handcufs before you exit the plane!

Gladhatter, the proof the we are on the right side of the argument is when they (MagicRat) feels the need to make accusations of racism.

(When all arguments fail, bring up the race card!)

It was his threat of lighting his shoes on fire supposedly with explosives, that justified the action by security. NOT whether he was Arabic or not.

I hope that guy lost his position as a diplomat.

And I am "she" not "he":smile:

When all arguments fail, bring up the race card!

The fact that yoiu don't understand the relevence of the man's race in this situation speaks volumes about your understanding of it.

It was his threat of lighting his shoes on fire supposedly with explosives, that justified the action by security. NOT whether he was Arabic or not.

What threat?

Man is caught smoking in the toilet and asked what he was doing.
He jokes, "trying to light my shoes" to make light of his minor indescretion.
As I alluded to, the fact that the flight staff over-reacted is why this is news.

I hope that guy lost his position as a diplomat.

How very Christian of you.

The fact that yoiu don't understand the relevence of the man's race in this situation speaks volumes about your understanding of it.
What does the "relevence" of the man's race have to do with the issue? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! You liberals seem to think that race is the ONLY reason reasonable people do anything!! NOT SO! The guy was stupid. He did a stupid thing. People get in trouble ALL THE TIME for doing stupid stuff like making innappropriate comments to TSA officials, smoking in the restrooms on planes etc. Try it some time and see!

Race also has NOTHING to do with my disgust with BHO's presidency. ....and REAL reasonable people are sick to death of seeing the race card played.
How very Christian of you.

So.... its not Christian to think a moron shouldn't be a diplomat? Gimme a
break!

geesh! (twit...maybe. razor sharp? not so much)

What does the "relevence" of the man's race have to do with the issue? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!

really?
if you saying that if it was a baseball cap wearing caucasian man who joked after being caught smoking in the toilet, it would still have been made into news then that says all I need know about your perception of the world.

So.... its not Christian to think a moron shouldn't be a diplomat?

where did I say that?
maybe you should try reading before posting.

I hope that guy lost his position as a diplomat.
Is it Christian to wish someone lose their job?
thinking a person shouldn't be part of a particular profession is one thing; wishing that a person lose their job is another.

really?
if you saying that if it was a baseball cap wearing caucasian man who joked after being caught smoking in the toilet, it would still have been made into news then that says all I need know about your perception of the world.
That's exactly what I was saying! Pay attention, son. ANYONE that pulls that crap gets dealt with. REGARDLESS of race!
where did I say that?
maybe you should try reading before posting.
You questioned someone's Christianity re wishing him to lose his job. He OBVIOUSLY is ill prepaid or qualified to DO his job. It is CERTAINLY not unchristian to want quality in those kinds of jobs!


Is it Christian to wish someone lose their job? thinking a person shouldn't be part of a particular profession is one thing; wishing that a person lose their job is another.
So it would be unchristian to fire an incompetant employee?
"Razor Sharp?" I think not.

I say bullcrap!
Try joking about bombs on a plane and see what it gets you! Light one up next time you fly. You will find yourself in handcufs before you exit the plane!
And you think it's only muslims who do this? Anyone can do this, so why do you pick on the Arab?

Oh, I know why!
Gladhatter, the proof the we are on the right side of the argument is when they (MagicRat) feels the need to make accusations of racism.


CL8, let me correct you. I am not accusing gladhatter of being racist. Arabs are not a distinct 'race'. They are Caucasian. But they obviously have a seperate culture, and to this end, gladhatter is a "culturalist" and has made many bigoted statements.

I am only confirming something that gladhatter has proven many times. BTW,

And CL8, you sounded like a member of the dreaded leftist liberal elite there for a moment. How very politically correct of you! :)

My gosh! I don't know what you're smoking but I have been pretty clear on this! ANYONE WHO PULLS THIS CRAP WILL BE IN DEEP KIMCHEE! It doesn't matter if you're muslim or pentacostal. Don't nelieve me? I hope you try it.

My gosh! I don't know what you're smoking but I have been pretty clear on this! ANYONE WHO PULLS THIS CRAP WILL BE IN DEEP KIMCHEE! It doesn't matter if you're muslim or pentacostal. Don't nelieve me? I hope you try it.

I agree with you there, but my point is you seem keen to keep the Muslims off the plane in the first place :)

The pant-load from Qatar should never have been on the plane! Political correctness puts everyone's life in jeopardy

Where did Gladhatter say that?

If Muslims would act civil and show respect for other peoples safety,
AND NOT BE SERIOUS OR JOKE ABOUT BOMBING A PLANE,
then I'm sure gladhatter would agree there is no problem with them on planes.

Many Muslims fly every day without causing alarm or scaring people
into thinking they will be blown up. It's the ones that go to that level
that must be stopped to save lives and maintain order.

How about the member of the flight staff who over-reacted and failed to tell the difference between a serious threat and a guy who was joking because he got caught smoking in the toilet?

If you deduced that the guy who made the joke must be bad at his job and hence fired, then surely the flight staff who displayed no sense of being able to judge the situation should also be fired for making a mountain out of a molehill.

How about the member of the flight staff who over-reacted and failed to tell the difference between a serious threat and a guy who was joking because he got caught smoking in the toilet?

If you deduced that the guy who made the joke must be bad at his job and hence fired, then surely the flight staff who displayed no sense of being able to judge the situation should also be fired for making a mountain out of a molehill.
Flight attenants don't have the luxury of being able to assume the maggot is joking. They must, for the safety of all aboard, always assume the worst. You obviously don't get out much.
BlackBerry9700/5.0.0.405 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102

Flight attenants don't have the luxury of being able to assume the maggot is joking. They must, for the safety of all aboard, always assume the worst.

you're kidding right?
it is part of the flight attendents job to deal with passengers as the situation deems fit, not to react in the most extreme manner to everything as you are suggesting.
always assume the worst?
man in 27G is coughing; he must have bird flu?
woman in 19F says she'll die if the plan doesn't stop shaking so they must land immediately?
give me a break.

if they can't tell the differnce between a joke meant to diffuse the situation (badly done as it may be) and a real threat, then they are the ones not good at their job.
in fact, this is the case in point.
flight attendent over-reacted.
there was no cause for anything other than a word of caution.

You obviously don't get out much.
and again with the ad hominem attacks but hey, i have a free afternoon, Let's entertain this suggestion for a while.
In the past 7 months I have been on a plane 6 times; that is three flights;
one to Florence, one to Venice, one to Hong Kong.
That is two short distance cross Europe trips and one long haul halfway across the world.
What's your travelling like?

?

If you deduced that the guy who made the joke must be bad at his job and hence fired, then surely the flight staff who displayed no sense of being able to judge the situation should also be fired for making a mountain out of a molehill.

DM get a grip on reality! If his threat was real it would cost hundreds of lives.

If a flight attendant is wrong in taking the threat serious, no lives are lost.

If the flight attendant is wrong believing it's a joke and he really does blow up the plane evreyone dies on the plane!

DM get a grip on reality! If his threat was real it would cost hundreds of lives.

My reality is fine.
It wasn't a threat, that's the point.
Flight attendent over-reacted to a non-situation; how many times do I have to repeat that?
Once again, if it was a baseball cap wearing caucasian man who quipped "trying to light my shoe" when caught smoking in the toilet, do you think he would've been carted off and written about in the manner like this was?
Did this even merit coverage?

Here's another prime example of what I am saying and be honest with your answer.
Have you ever heard of Joel Hinrichs Jr.?

Do a quick google and see if you can find him on American news websites, then go and find one of the few the articles written about the Qatari diplomat and compare the difference in coverage.
Then think about this; one was a case of a bad attempt at getting out of trouble, the other was a real bomb.
Which one is real news?

You would think that something like someone actually setting off a bomb in the location that he did would have gotten more press, no?
Could it possibly be because that the guy had no connection to any Islamic group or terrorist group that meant he wasn't news?

My reality is fine.
It wasn't a threat, that's the point.
Flight attendent over-reacted to a non-situation; how many times do I have to repeat that?
Once again, if it was a baseball cap wearing caucasian man who quipped "trying to light my shoe" when caught smoking in the toilet, do you think he would've been carted off and written about in the manner like this was?
Did this even merit coverage?Yes.
DM, please explain how a flight attendant is supposed go about knowing if a threat to light a bomb is real when the person making the threat is locked in the toilet room on a plane.
Tell us how YOU would go about verifying this and not "over react".

Here's another prime example of what I am saying and be honest with your answer.
Have you ever heard of Joel Hinrichs Jr.?

Do a quick google and see if you can find him on American news websites, then go and find one of the few the articles written about the Qatari diplomat and compare the difference in coverage.
Then think about this; one was a case of a bad attempt at getting out of trouble, the other was a real bomb.
Which one is real news?http://www.kirotv.com/news/5048607/detail.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/5057141/detail.html
http://cbs4denver.com/crime/local_story_326132043.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9651054
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/10/434a8f7944e01
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/26/oklahoma-u-bomber-honored/
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2006/12/07/brother-of-ou-bomber-charged/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500046/posts
http://oudaily.com/news/2005/oct/03/bombs-shake-campus/
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-48769.html
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=1206&zoneid=2
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-11818110_ITM

How many "American" sources did you want me to find?:cool:


You would think that something like someone actually setting off a bomb in the location that he did would have gotten more press, no?
Could it possibly be because that the guy had no connection to any Islamic group or terrorist group that meant he wasn't news?Another name:Timothy McVeigh (No Muslim terrorist connections)
He got more coverage than that diplomat has gotten!

Yes.
DM, please explain how a flight attendant is supposed go about knowing if a threat to light a bomb is real when the person making the threat is locked in the toilet room on a plane.

he was not locked in the toilet.
he was not making a threat.
how can I make it clearer to you?

How many "American" sources did you want me to find?:cool:
I'm glad you're so please with yourself.
Did you do the other bit and compare the amount of coverage of the two incidents?
Did you take the time to see how many of those are major news sites?
Where's CNN? Where's Reuters? Where are the major network channels news sites?

Another name:Timothy McVeigh (No Muslim terrorist connections)
He got more coverage than that diplomat has gotten!

And once again, you fail to see the relevence of the Joel Hinrichs Jr. example (post 9/11) and the McVeigh case (pre 9/11), illustrating your very thin grasp of the simple concept of context.

CL8 = 100% correct
DM = 150% WRONG = 100% ABSURD

Flight attendants don't have the luxury of being able to guess who's joking and who's a terrorist!

he was not locked in the toilet.
he was not making a threat.
how can I make it clearer to you?
Thats right, he was making a "joke" not a threat.:shakehead
You haven't told us how YOU would determine if it was a real threat or a joke.


I'm glad you're so please with yourself.
Did you do the other bit and compare the amount of coverage of the two incidents?
Did you take the time to see how many of those are major news sites?
Where's CNN? Where's Reuters? Where are the major network channels
news sites?MSNBC and Michellemalkin are major network channels
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9651054 (http://redirectingat.com/?id=252X400&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F9651054&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.automotiveforums.com%2Fvbull etin%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D6378625)
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/26...omber-honored/ (http://redirectingat.com/?id=252X400&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmichellemalkin.com%2F2007%2F04%2F 26%2Foklahoma-u-bomber-honored%2F&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.automotiveforums.com%2Fvbull etin%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D6378625)


here is a transcript from CNN:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/03/sitroom.01.html


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, officials are still giving very little information on the kind of explosive device this was, and where it was in relation to this student. But we are getting insight from his own family into this young man's state of mind.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): Joel Hinrichs' father tells CNN his son had not responded to recent treatment for depression and had been -- quote -- "living his life without optimism for a long time." When the 21- year-old's life ended, authorities say, he was sitting a bench not far from Oklahoma University's football stadium during Saturday night's game against Kansas State.

Law enforcement and school officials will only say an explosive device went off where Hinrichs was sitting, without injuring anyone else.

DAVID BOREN, PRES., UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: This device went off when others were not around. He was there by himself. He was quite some distance from the stadium or any location of groups on people. It did not occur prior to the game when a large group of people might have been there.

TODD: But the incident did cause confusion after the game and prompted school officials and local law enforcement to evacuate campus housing complexes nearby.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everybody go back, please. For your own safety, please go back.

TODD: The FBI has taken the lead on the investigation. Joel Hinrichs, III, was a junior from Colorado Springs, majoring in mechanical engineering at Oklahoma. His parents are going through a divorce, but his father tells CNN he does not believe that had any bearing on Joel's apparent suicide. He says his son had no friends at all, had an inability to form attachments to people, and was very stubborn.

Joel Hinrichs wanted to live life on his own terms, his father says, and he believes his son had concluded that those terms were not going to bring him happiness.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: School officials say students have begun moving back into those evacuated housing complexes, one of which was Joel Hinrichs' apartment building. Classes resumed those morning as scheduled. Joel Hinrichs' father says he still wants to believe this might have been some kind of accident -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What a sad story that is. Brian, thank you very much. Brian Todd reporting. and it looks to me like the coverage is relatively the same on the diplomat and Hinrich.

And once again, you fail to see the relevence of the Joel Hinrichs Jr. example (post 9/11) and the McVeigh case (pre 9/11), illustrating your very thin grasp of the simple concept of context.since when was the "concept of context" limited to post 911?
I guess since just now, so you would have a way to attempt to make me look bad. :rolleyes:

Okay....keep supporting these nut-jobs. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U-CyHYv-14&feature=related)

But WAIT!! There's more!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8K1PDoVxU&feature=related)

This is a recent comment made by the Australia Prime Minister,

"Our country was founded on Christian values, maybe we need to get back to that." The words of the Prime Minister should ring true to all Americans that watched the Horror on 9-11. Now this is a President, don't you wish you had one like this? America , Canada , all Europe ….. we need a President like this!

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.

‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians’.
‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’. ‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’
‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’
‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’
‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’ Hopefully, many American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same opinions as this great man! Kevin Rudd, you want to be POTUS, you have my vote! BTW, you don't need to show a birth certificate to be the POTUS! :rofl:

Maybe, when my business takes off and is profitable, I will move to Australia!!!

While reading an article on distracted driving, I came across this quote:

“the burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience .... it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic” [Nicolas Sarkozy, June 22, 2009]Applause to Nicolas Sarkozy for taking a stand against the oppression of women by the Muslim religion!

Sorry for my disappearance; I was sunny it in Lisbon and decided to extend my stay while they were faffing about the dust cloud over UK palava.

Anyways.
How do I determine if it was a joke?
Dunno but then again I'm not a supposed trained member of flight staff.
Anything I say would easily be countered by a "what if" post from you.
But generally, how do you tell when a person is joking anyway?
Probably the same way the flight staff who attended to me knew I was joking when I said I was going drink myself stupid in case the dust cloud did affect my flight so I wouldn't care if the plane took a dive into the ocean.

If you are looking at the coverage of Henrichs Jr and the Qatari diplomat and saying they are equal in their coverage then quite simply, you are lying to yourself.

As for the context; how can I put this in simple terms.
Pre 9/11, all terrorist incidents have equal weighting in terms of press.
Post 9/11 only Islamic related terrorist incidents seem to get deemed news-worthy; as in this case, a non-bomb threat was given news inches in all of the news sites around the world while Henreichs Jr was only mentioned in some.
Put it this way, did you really know about Henrichs Jr before I mentioned him?
If you really can't tell the relevence of the context of pre/post 9/11 relating to terrorist incidents then I think I really am done discusing this here with you.

As for Sarkozy; I'm glad you like him.
(Islam is) one of the greatest and most beautiful civilisations the world has known

Sorry for my disappearance; I was sunny it in Lisbon and decided to extend my stay while they were faffing about the dust cloud over UK palava.
I'm glad you were sunny in Lisbon DM!
Did people have to wear sunglasses when looking at you?:grinyes:

Anyways.
How do I determine if it was a joke?
Dunno but then again I'm not a supposed trained member of flight staff.
Anything I say would easily be countered by a "what if" post from you.
But generally, how do you tell when a person is joking anyway?
Probably the same way the flight staff who attended to me knew I was joking when I said I was going drink myself stupid in case the dust cloud did affect my flight so I wouldn't care if the plane took a dive into the ocean.
But your comment didn't threaten to endanger the lives of others even if you were serious.
If you are looking at the coverage of Henrichs Jr and the Qatari diplomat and saying they are equal in their coverage then quite simply, you are lying to yourself.

As for the context; how can I put this in simple terms.
Pre 9/11, all terrorist incidents have equal weighting in terms of press.
Post 9/11 only Islamic related terrorist incidents seem to get deemed news-worthy; as in this case, a non-bomb threat was given news inches in all of the news sites around the world while Henreichs Jr was only mentioned in some.
Put it this way, did you really know about Henrichs Jr before I mentioned him?
If you really can't tell the relevence of the context of pre/post 9/11 relating to terrorist incidents then I think I really am done discusing this here with you.Another thread to disucuss it?
Truthfully, the threat of terrorism on American soil has risen since 911 . Thats good reason for more coverage on it.

As for Sarkozy; I'm glad you like him.I don't know that I like Sarkozy, just his coment I quoted.

I guess 15 days isn't too long to chime in....

At US airports, there are signs about joking, they say (paraphrased) that any statement made will be taken as a real statement, joke or not.

You asked how one can tell if someone is joking or not. You can't, not 100%. Security has chosen to err on the side of caution, which is the only way to be sure. I know a pilot that was talking to another crew member (in uniforms) and said they had "gotten bombed last week". Guess what? TSA pulled him aside and took him in the back room for questioning. DrunkenMonkey, your joke about drinking yourself silly and the ash cloud is very different than someone joking about lighting their shoe on fire.

Although many airlines still allow smoking on board, all US and most European airlines do not. It is technically a felony to smoke on board a US airliner. That is enough as far as I'm concerned to come down heavily on someone violating that law.

ANY smoke on a flying aircraft is an emergency situation, since a fire can be burning behind a panel. Having smoke put in the air by someone illegally smoking in the lavatory can mask a real issue, or cause the flight crew to react as if there is an actual fire - either of which can cause a huge problem.

:thumbsup: Excellent points Fred!

:thumbsup: Excellent points Fred!

Thanks! When I'm not on AF, I fly airplanes for a living.

commercial airplanes?

commercial airplanes?

Yup. Started my 2nd career as an Airline Pilot about 2 1/2 years ago...before that I was in the insurance business.

So have you personally as a pilot and captain of a commercial airliner had any
events or close calls with terrorist threats?

Your stories would be interesting to read!

Can you disclose what airline you work for?

I fly for Continental Express - the smaller planes. I don't have any terrorism stories to tell, but our folks have had some unruly passengers that were met at the destination by law enforcement.

It's just better not to raise an eyebrow in today's travel climate. Making a joke can wind you up in jail, or at a minimum missing your flight.

I agree Bob, I have some excellent Muslim friends at work, who are fine family orientated people. We rarely discuss religion or politics, but during the election, one of them was boasting that he was voting for Obama, so I asked him why? He said that he thought Obama was really a Muslim at heart and would do more for the Muslims people than the other candidate. I did not argue with him, in fact all I could do was agree! :sly:

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it seems that all terrorist are Muslim! What good is it for a person to gain the whole world & forfeit their own life? I hope that one of these days, Allah will run out of virgins, so all the terror & human sacrifices can come to an end! :grinyes:

have you not heard of the KKK, neo Nazis, and all other extremist groups on basically every populated place on earth.

have you not heard of the KKK, neo Nazis, and all other extremist groups on basically every populated place on earth.

Yeah but you don't see the KKK blowing up subway stations to make their point.

So I'm not reading through all 23 goddamn pages of this shit. All I've seen is...

"MUSLIMS ARE EXTREME!"
"NO THEY'RE NOT!"
"YES THEY ARE!"
"NO STOP BEING STUPID!"

This argument right here is 22 pages too long. Muslims are extreme and bat shit crazy. Don't believe me? It's called the news, go read it sometime.
British couple getting arrested for kissing?
South Park getting death threats over Muhammad?
9/11?
Anti-Western literature in mosques?
Dutch cartoons?

If you disagree with me you're either A. Muslim or B. an ass kisses. Muslims are extreme and they're also pussies who can't take a joke or criticism. The only good way to look at them is with one eye open...until the magazine is empty.

"MUSCLETANG YOU'RE AN INSENSITIVE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT, RACIST, BIGOTED ASSHOLE!"

Well that's something I have in common with the people we're talking about.

have you not heard of the KKK, neo Nazis, and all other extremist groups on basically every populated place on earth.

bmorebuick88, are YOU a Muslim?:eek7:


The danger of Muslim Terrorists is not that they are "extreme"
Martin Luther was "extreme" but he didn't murder others. He did good.

The danger of Muslim terrorists is that they are murderous thugs, intent
on killing innocent people.

It's just better not to raise an eyebrow in today's travel climate. Making a joke can wind you up in jail, or at a minimum missing your flight.

It might also get your ass kicked if you're in the air. We'd all be met with handcuffs at the terminal, but at least we'd GET to the terminal in one piece if you really weren't joking. :evillol:

It might also get your ass kicked if you're in the air. We'd all be met with handcuffs at the terminal, but at least we'd GET to the terminal in one piece if you really weren't joking. :evillol:

Amen to that.

"MUSCLETANG YOU'RE AN INSENSITIVE, POLITICALLY INCORRECT, RACIST, BIGOTED ASSHOLE!"

Well that's something I have in common with the people we're talking about.

sigh ... Move over, Kyle; I'm gonna have to sit on the bench next to you. Makes 2 of us. :wink:

I'm a God fearing bible believeing Christian. As I like to say I am a practicing Christian. I don't know the bible front to back but I am learning and trying to follow God's word. I follow and try to live by the bible and not some crap dogma writen by a Pope.


Jesus dying on the cross allows me to live under the grace of God. God gave us free will. Free will to do as we please. The answers to why God allows suffering is written in the bible. Please read it and quit quoting out of contexts.

Now what is the punishment for a Christain becoming a muslim? How about the punsihment for a muslim becoming a Christian? Ask Mosab Hassan about that.

In the US all people are equal how about in a muslim country?

The Muslim governments in Sudan had imposed Sharia, Islamic law in 1993. Over 2 million Sudanese Christians and animists have been killed and enslaved, since then barely an outcry is heard about this. For years in Indonesia, the Philippines and East Timor, Christians are being massacred by Muslims. Coptic Christians in Egypt whose religion arrived prior to Islam, have been slaughtered by fundamentalist Muslims. The authorities have done little to stop them. Arab Christians are oppressed by Muslims in their own lands as are Christians in many Arab lands such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. Churches and Christian homes in Nigeria are being burned, and Christians are murdered, by militant Muslims because they believe they are unbelievers, so they are doing God’s will. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to be anything but a Muslim. The death penalty is given if ones conscience has them believe another religion, especially Christianity.

What is the punishment for a married muslim woman cheating on her husband? How about a muslim man cheating on his wife? Ask Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.stoning/index.html),. Check out this video http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm and tell me stoning is right.

India persutes the Christian church by passing laws banning out of country preachers from preaching in India. My Church has 500 Christian churches set up in India and refused to allow any Christain pastor a visit visa to preach in India. Read this site http://christianpersecutionindia.blogspot.com/

What about building a Christian church in a Muslim country? Read http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Persecution_of_non-Muslims

Shari law is dangerous and cruel. It's not just the radicals we need to worry about.

What about Salman Rushdie would someone like him get the same threats from the Christian church?

What other religion besides Islam preaches the destruction of another nation namely Isreal. The Jews are God's chosen people and it will never happen.

I'm not for one minute saying the Christian church is prefect but it doesn't allow for the murder and dismemberment of people for the sake of religion. Before you jump all over me the Mormons are not Christians they are a cult. We have hundreds of cults claiming to be Christians. Catholics do not follow the bible.

Which is the real Islam?
Were the hijackers radicals? Were they extremists, radicals or are they are following the Koran as Bin Laden is saying. This is something we will have to make our mind up as individuals and as a nation as the truth comes out. The translated version of the Arabic document that was left behind instructed the hijackers “You should pray, you should fast. You should ask God for guidance, you should ask God for help . . . Continue to pray throughout this night. Continue to recite the Koran.” What verses would they be reading before committing this inhuman act?
The Dallas Morning News quoted federal officials as saying that a copy of an Arabic-language prayer guide had been found in the wreckage of Flight 93. The first four pages of the document obtained by The Post recite some basic Islamic history about the prophet fighting infidels with 100 men against 1,000.
Were these men wrong or alone in their interpretation and representation of Islam? The truth is that young Muslims are recruited for Jihad all over the world, especially in Israel. Unfortunately they are being used by evil and clever men to further their cause by religion! We know now 16 out of the 19 terrorists came into America with student visas. There are still 600,000 foreign students on our soil with student visas, something we need to further look into. This is what we are now face. Is there is an Islamic fifth column operating on America’s soil, that the American public needs to know about? I realize that there are many conservative Muslims in America and elsewhere who would nothing to do with this kind of Islam, and so I'm not addressing those who are in the minority in America. We are looking at those who come to America in disguise, for in their homelands they would be open and vocal in what they believe.
How loyal are some Muslims to America? What would they do if they have to choose between defending America and their God or fellow Muslims? In the Sunday edition of the New York Times, a reporter interviewed Muslim American students in Brooklyn, one of the male students said, on the record, that he would abandon the United States and give his own life to back an “observant Muslim who is fighting for an Islamic cause.” This is not an isolated opinion.
Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington wrote in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization. The evidence is overwhelming.”
The fact is that 10 out of the 20 top terrorists on the FBI list have the name ahmed or Mohammad in their names. What is the message sent when they are named after Mohammed? Would Mohammed do such things? Maybe we need to ask Muslims “What would Mohammed do?”
It is a spiritual fact that the God we serve and worship will conform us to his likeness.
What is Jihad?
This has becomes a war of Islam within itself. It is the fundamentalist Islam, the ancient Islam clashing with the conservative Islam of today. Each have there own interpretations of their Qur’an. Many new Muslim theologians argued for a new interpretation of the Qur'an, some are good with a more conservative view and some want to go back to the old. This conflict called Jihad that we have now entered into is of a religious nature, and it’s meaning is crucial.
The Jihad ideology and the dhimmi rules are not in the Qur'an. These apparently were developed by Muslim theologians after the death of Muhammad. They were the result of the interpretation of some verses in the Qur'an and some from the hadith (their commentaries). These were mostly composed during the period of the Islamic conquest in the eighth or ninth century, when there was a strong military confrontation between Christianity and Islam. But it is not only Jews and Christians that are in this conflict, but also Buddhists, Hindus and any other religion that is not Islamic.
A dhimmi is any non-Muslim who is tolerated under the Islamic rule of government.
Jihad is the Muslim view that the world is divided into two parts: Muslim and the non-Muslims lands. In Islam there is the idea of Jihad (the struggle to extend the interests of Islam). The Quran speaks of the struggle within oneself (inner jihad), the struggle within the Islamic community (external jihad), and the struggle among unbelievers (also an external jihad). It is this one which becomes a militant aggression against those that oppose their beliefs.
Surah 29:68-69, (Al-Ankabut) introduces the idea that the Muslim will encounter many who are practitioners of error, and it is their duty to be alert to error and not succumb to it. “And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against God or rejects the Truth when it reaches Him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith? Sura 29:69 “And those who strive (Jihad,) in Our (Cause), We will certainly guide them to Our Paths: for verily God is with those who do right.” The term “Jihad” or “struggle” is used in this sense, although it is not the more common use.
In Surah 25:51-52 (Al-Furqan) Muslims are instructed to “struggle” against unbelievers with the Qur'an. This places the struggle in the realm of an intellectual struggle. “Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every center of population, 52 Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive (Jihad,) against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an).”
When Mohammad established his community (the umma) his intention was to have both Jews and Christians be part of it, by paying a designated tax. But they did not accept him as a prophet, Sura 2:113 “The Jews say: “The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: “The Jews have naught (To stand) upon.” Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.
Jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. It is a perpetual conflict. The concept of Jihad preceded the Crusades by five centuries. It was with Jihad that the Christian populations and Jewish communities became subject to the Islamic law. If they submitted without resistance to the Muslim armies, they were given protection by the Islamic ruler, but this was protection from the laws of jihad, not protection because they were cared or loved by them. If they paid the tax, (a ransom money) their life was safe. Sura 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in Allah … until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a states of subjection with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (1917 Maulana Mohammed Ali Translation).
Tolerance was given to Jews and Christians only on the condition that they would accept and submit to their system of Shari’a and have inferiority. Under countries that have shari'a, not everyone is equal, only Muslims are equal. Under what we consider a declaration of human rights in America or the western world, we recognize that everyone has the right to live by their conscience and have liberty, the freedom to choose
Jizya is the tax levied on Dhimmis by Muslim rulers. A Dhimmi is a non-Muslim tolerated under Shari’a, Islamic rule.
When non-Muslims or a non-Muslim country pays a tribute to the Islamic countries, war can be replaced by a temporary peace. But if they stop paying the Jizya, (the tax), the jihad resumes because jihad is the normal state of relationship between the non-Muslim and the Muslim. Those in the early growth of Islam that disagreed, that did not want to be converted to Islam or to be reduced to slavery, fled to the mountains or to other cities. In this era non-Muslims had to dress differently (sometime humiliating) when they went out in public so that they would not be confused with Muslims. Non-Muslims were not allowed to practice their religion in public. Those of other religions were not permitted to build new synagogues or churches. The Jews could not repair their synagogues the Christians their churches and In time fall into ruins.
The history of dhimmi, include Jews and Christians are a single unit because they are bound together as the People of the Book. This phrase the people of the book is used several times in the Qu’ran. In Sura 5:15: “O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.” Here we find that Mohammad’s revelation replaces the Old and New Testament.
For us to ignore militant Islam’s intolerance toward what they deem as unbelievers, is a grave and costly mistake. There is no middle ground in this kind of jihad, Sura 9:5,29,41 “Slay the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!”
We need to understand not only how they live, but why. Shari’a (Islamic law) is not practiced by all Arab nations but they all do not allow freedom of speech, the press, or religion in their lands as we have in America or in other western countries. Muslims are able to build mosques in England, America and many western countries with no protest, but they do not allow others the same rights in their countries. This is because Islam does not support a democracy.
The Muslim governments in Sudan had imposed Sharia, Islamic law in 1993. Over 2 million Sudanese Christians and animists have been killed and enslaved, since then barely an outcry is heard about this. For years in Indonesia, the Philippines and East Timor, Christians are being massacred by Muslims. Coptic Christians in Egypt whose religion arrived prior to Islam, have been slaughtered by fundamentalist Muslims. The authorities have done little to stop them. Arab Christians are oppressed by Muslims in their own lands as are Christians in many Arab lands such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon. Churches and Christian homes in Nigeria are being burned, and Christians are murdered, by militant Muslims because they believe they are unbelievers, so they are doing God’s will. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to be anything but a Muslim. The death penalty is given if ones conscience has them believe another religion, especially Christianity.
In the article Islam “According to Oprah”, By Rod Dreher, columnist for the New York Post October 8, 2001 quotes author Samuel P. Huntington and says “In his 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Harvard's Samuel P. Huntington warned us of deluding ourselves about the true nature of the Islamic threat. “Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists,” Huntington wrote. “Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”
An imam in Gaza earlier this year broadcasted a sermon over Palestinian Authority radio calling on Muslims to murder Christians and Jews because it is their Islamic duty. Broadcasts such as “first we go after the Saturday people then the Sunday people” are not uncommon. For it is the Qur'an that says 5:36 “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” So they take a literal interpretation of these verses implementing them in their daily lives.
The last hour with the false Christ (Daljal) is an important topic in the Hadith as it warns of his coming. According to the Bible he will make a peace treaty with Israel. This is exactly what this war is about.
Mohammed said, “The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them.” (Mishkat Al Masabih Sh.M. Ashraf pp.147, 721, 810-11, 1130) It is the Hadith that explains the Qur’an, it is their commentary on the writings. Hadith, the body of traditions relating to Mohammed and now supplemental to the Koran: He (Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. (Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)
If a good portion of Islam believes we are in this hour then we can understand the “why” of what is now taking place.
We have heard that Muslims are for peace, but most have not asked what they mean by peace.
What does it mean when Muslims say they are for peace? For the most part means that there would be no struggle or resistance to Islam. That those who are not Muslim would submit. Islam means submission, a Muslim is one who submits to Allah, and there is not peace without Allah. George Braswell, Jr. (B.D., Yale; Ph.D., U of NC) lived in Iran for seven years, defines the word “peace” from a Muslim perspective, “The world…of Islam must conquer and rule over those of ignorance and disobedience…. The peace of the world cannot be secured until the peoples come under the rule and protection of Islam.” (What You Need To Know About Islam and Muslims, p. 87)
We hear they for peace, and they have quoted their own verse to prove it; but it is out of its full context. They have said to us "anyone who kills another man it is as if he has killed all mankind." Here is the whole quote which changes it’s meaning as far as I’m concerned. "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind" (Sura 5:27-32) These "other words" certainly change the meaning of the verse. The question that should be asked is why they cannot quote their own verse correctly to the public. To Muslim all those who do not worship Allah are corrupted. If they misquote their own verse to the public doesn’t this show they either do not know their own religious book or it is done on purpose. The question would be why?
Personally when I hear of a religion is promoting peace as in tolerance, I think of Buddhism before Islam.
Again in Sura 17:33 “Nor take life - which God has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).” While a cursory reading of this passage can support the view of not to kill, it still has in it a qualification of “except for just cause” and “slain wrongfully.” Again this can mean something quite different than the way we interpret it here in the west. There may be Muslims that would not interpret these verses in a negative way, but what about history. How did they traditionally use these verses? This will have to be left up to those who specialty is in the area of Islamic history, mine is not.
Jihad is a necessary element in Islam. Islam turned to aggression as those refused the message and the messenger. Mohammed as general planned 65 campaigns and lead 27 invasions, certainly these would be considered Jihad. Mohammad was sometimes diplomatic and would institute a peace. But we are not focusing on the character of Mohammad, but the history and the revelation. The sword was most often used to conquer those steeped in paganism, and at one time Islam had conquered all of Northern Africa and came close to overtaking Europe. The belief that people need to have the one God who is Allah spurred the followers to spread this religion. Islam spread its influence not by engaging in dialogue and persuading people by truth, but by the offer of submitting to Allah. Unfortunately this became a similarity in the “Christian crusades” as well.
It is a spiritual fact that the God we serve, follow and worship will conform us to his likeness.
There are about 100 verses that endorse the use violence, and a plain reading of these is apparent what they say is what they mean. Some I'm sure may disagree saying they are not clear. Lets look at the quotes from the Qur'an that teach war and killing on the unbelievers and infidels > the Qur'an's quotes (http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm)


Let Us Reason Ministries

To be fair the Crusades and the Inquisition were also religious wars, but they were not sanctioned by the Bible or Jesus. No Scripture was used to promote this. The crusaders acted under the name of Christian but they could not validate their actions from the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It was by a Church gone drunk with power and to bring others under its influence. Christian separation is always needed to discern between what is God's and what is Caesar's. The fact is the true Church started by Jesus was martyred throughout the centuries by Islam and even by some who called themselves the Church.

What I have also heard is that these terrorist are no different than those who claimed to be Christian. Such as Jim Jones or David Koresh. This comparison fails in several ways. 1st- Jim Jones never used the Bible to commit his suicides and he had the people do suicides willingly on themselves because they were brainwashed, they did not kill others outside their group in the name of God.

2nd- Koresh already came from the cultic teachings of the 7th day Adventist church, so he was removed from Christianity. He too did not have his people kill others, but convinced them to follow him to their own deaths. Besides if we look at how many of these people are found in Christianity in comparison to Islam it is very little.

So these are poor comparisons to those who kill and enslave others in the name of God throughout the world and any other religion.

Again I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist, but every Muslim is a potential terrorist. They have enough in their book for leaders to influence the people to adopt this position. They have, and they will continue to practice this as long as there is no internal protest against it. Let those who are for peace speak louder than those who want to kill.

peace-loving muslims are only peaceful while they are waiting to outnumber everyone else. THEN watch out.

More from the "religion of peace"! (http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/19362)

How about speaker Pelosis' support of the mosque at ground zero and abuse of those opposed to it!


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/18/penny-nance-nancy-pelosi-speaker-ground-zero-mosque-victims-families-muslim/

More from the "religion of peace"! (http://planet-iran.com/index.php/news/19362)

They're entitled to have their own laws, the same as we are. I'm sure that they don't agree with many of our laws.

I'm not saying that their laws are fair or that I agree with them. I'm saying that a sovereign nation has the right to govern its people as it will.

Pelosi's an idiot and needs to be voted out of the Senate.

They're entitled to have their own laws, the same as we are. I'm sure that they don't agree with many of our laws.

I'm not saying that their laws are fair or that I agree with them. I'm saying that a sovereign nation has the right to govern its people as it will.

Is that why President Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena from Romania were executed, or why Saddam Hussein was hanged by his own people, or why most of the world declared war against Hitler? Because they had the "right" to govern (and kill) their people as they desired?

How about speaker Pelosis' support of the mosque at ground zero and abuse of those opposed to it!


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/18/penny-nance-nancy-pelosi-speaker-ground-zero-mosque-victims-families-muslim/

You can't seriously use Pelosi as an example :rofl:

Is that why President Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena from Romania were executed, or why Saddam Hussein was hanged by his own people, or why most of the world declared war against Hitler? Because they had the "right" to govern (and kill) their people as they desired?

Saddam being hung by his people is actually a pretty good example of the people governing .

Hitler was against the world because he tryed to take over the world. Not because of what he did in Germeny

Is that why President Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elena from Romania were executed, or why Saddam Hussein was hanged by his own people, or why most of the world declared war against Hitler? Because they had the "right" to govern (and kill) their people as they desired?


Shpuker summed it up pretty well; the Romanians were killed because the people decided that they should no longer be in power.

"The world" didn't declare war on Hitler, but on Germany, since Germany had started the war, at Hitler's direction. If you know your history, then you know that even some of Hitler's highest ranking officers wanted him dead. Ever hear of the movie "Valkyrie" with Tom Cruise? Based on truth.

Hussein was hanged by Iraqi citizens, yes, after he was caught by Americans. THAT is just a messed up situation right there, and probably a whole different discussion.

I think your statement is better said:

"A leader of a sovereign nation is allowed to govern his people as he will"

It will never be right for a nations leader to abuse and or kill the citizens of their nation, for unjust reasons.

Still more delight from these maggots! (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P17420100826)

Simple answer:

King James Version Holy Bible, : I John, chapter 4, verse 15 and I John, chapter 5, verse 10 are saying that Islam is calling God a liar; God says Islam is from the Devil.
nuff said.

^True.
Also Christians and Jews aren't plotting how to kill and annihilate Muslims
as Muslims do to Americans, Christians and Jews.
That tells which religion is the religion of real peace.
Try building a Christian church in Mecca ( Jews and Christians aren't even allowed there).
Islam is a diabolical religion and belief system.

Simple answer:

King James Version Holy Bible, : I John, chapter 4, verse 15 and I John, chapter 5, verse 10 are saying that Islam is calling God a liar; God says Islam is from the Devil.
nuff said.

Well, though I agree, I must point out that the original Gospel was written by John prior to the year 100. Islam came out in the 1400s, and the King James version of the Bible came out somewhat later.

So this leads to the conclusions that John could not have known about Islam, and that the Bible was edited after the start of Islam to reflect the current point of view.