steveox
Well-Known Member
I Hate Muslims cause they hate us look and just for yourself
You Decide
You Decide
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Why I hate Muslims.
- Thread starter dahermit
- Start date
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Now you are making much more of a persuasive argument than before. Many people would wholeheartedly agree that if someone hates you then it is justified to hate them in return. But I think it can still be improved. What you have said may even be right in certain circumstances.
If someone tries to hurt you then by all means it is justified to protect yourself. If a man with a gun tries to shoot you then you are justified to shoot him first. But if he drops his gun before he fires then were you to shoot him it would be murder. He is no longer a threat once he no longer has his gun. How you feel about the man either when you protect yourself or when you merely detain him until the police arrive is irrelevant. The important factor is that you can protect yourself. You could shoot the man while he holds his gun not even knowing who he is and having no feeling of hate at all. You could also detain him with no hate. Hate is not necessary in order to protect yourself or to detain him.
The muslim who hates us is more like the the assailant who has dropped his gun. The hatred is not a threat to us. His weapon would be. We wouild be very wise to watch and wait to see if he picks up a weapon and if so to shoot him.
If the Muslims hate us we are not obligated to hate them. A better course of action is to take all steps to protect ourselves if needed while trying to reconcile. If we need to wage war then by all means wage it to win but hatred is irrelevant. Many soldiers in many wars had no personal hatred toward the men on the other side of the line. At times they were even countrymen, family and friends. In some wars they called a truce to celebrate Christmas together then returned to the fighting the next day.
It is necessary to protect ourselves but it is not necessary to hate.
And after all of that I want to make a statement that seems counter.
Hatred has as its purpose to motivate us to rally against injustice. Though it does not have as its motive to rally us to commit our own injustice. If they are hating your countrymen and the hatred is an injustice then by all means use your hatred of that injustice to rally yourself to a just action. But hate the injustice not the unjust man.
So would it be all right with you if we changed your statment just a little? Let me know if this is acceptable?
Instead of saying:
"I Hate Muslims cause they hate us look and just for yourself"
What if we said:
"I hate the Muslim's hatred of us and just look for yourself"
Could that work?
(then we might only add that some of them do not hate us and we would not hate their hatred because it does not exist. We would only hate the hatred of the Muslims who hate us. That is a pretty awkward sentence but we could fix it much more easily by saying the following)
"I hate some Muslim's hatred of us and just look for yourself."
Obviously you have missed the point of the post. The things I listed in the original post were things we did to Muslims, explaining why some Muslims hate us. I evidently over-estimated the intelligence and their knowledge of our historical involvement in middle eastern internal affairs of many of the readers.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I guess I did miss the point of what you were saying. Did you really have to insult many of our readers based on my misunderstanding of what you did not spell out quite so clearly?
It seemed to me that you were saying we would hate us based on those things not that the Muslims hate us based on those things.
I would agree that people in other countries where the US has meddled would be unhappy with that. I am sure that is a reason for hatred toward the US. I think another reason would be that we do have more freedom than they do and those who want a gov based on sharia law would not like the example that is set.
I think if we were to spend a lot more of our time and money on making our country the free-est nation with the highest standard of living for all and less on meddling that we would have less problems with groups like the Muslim brotherhood overall because they would have less power in their own countries. Those groups would hate us even more but so many other groups would hate us less.
Yes. Or rather, not an insult, just a fact that the average I.Q. is 100. If you have had conversations with people with a 100 I.Q., it is painfully obvious that their intelligence leaves much to be desired.
The only persons that state that are American conservatives. The fact that we have more freedom is never listed by our Muslim enemies as the reason for their hatred.
(my emphasis) Something we finally can agree on.
Yeah there is no difference. They are both the same.
Are you Fat Rosie O'Donnell?
Killin' is killin' so yeah the same.
So.....I am left to wonder exactly how the ‘merika hatin' OP must feel about the two million Albanian muslims of Kosova who absolutely love America more than Americans love themselves? And what of the muslims of Bosnia and Sarajavo? And what about the 12,396,631 Iraqis—the nearly 80 percent of the Iraqi electorate who voted—who defied the terrorists from alQaeda and the former regime and ‘collaborated’ with the Americans occupying their country by participating in the first free and fair parliamentary elections in their country's history? Or what about the millions of pro-‘merikan freedom lovin' Iranian youth who chanted “down with the dictator” instead of “death to the Great Satan”? Or what of the 2.5 million Afghan girls who have enrolled in thousands of schools established by UNICEF and Oxfam — which would be burnt to the ground if the imperialist Americans and multinational forces abandoned the Afghans to alQaeda and their Pakistani-pashtun imperialist allies who call themselves ‘the Taliban’? When he says he hates muslims, I hope he just means those muslims who appreciate American freedoms and democracy?—(as opposed to the other ‘real muslims’ who hate America and love misogynists and fanatics like Khomeini or Osama?)
http://www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/feeding-girls-hunger-to.html
http://www.unicefusa.org/news/news-from-the-field/feeding-girls-hunger-to.html
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
to some ..Muslims are only good if they are good lapdogs to US policy...if not you just lump them with terrorist...
its pretty sad.
its pretty sad.
steveox
Well-Known Member
Muslims are into this
Yes, perhaps. But not nearly as sad as the manner that millions of so-called “liberals”—i.e. the pathetic Neo-Marxist remains of the New Left in the West—dismissed the twelve million Iraqis who risked their lives to elect their first representative government and ratify their country's first popular constitution—the one that was debated and framed by delegates who were selected and apportioned according to the votes that their respective parties received.
And what's even sadder than that is that the Clinton administration and Chirac and the UK and other three countries on the UNSC were able to impose a comprehensive economic ‘genocidal embargo’ on an entire country of 25 million people whilst you and everyone else here stole their oil through the UN ‘Oil for Food’ scam—while each of us paid of our own pockets for that privilege and paid their dictator and paid to prop up his ethnic cleansing police-state—for well over a decade — the longest embargo in human history — and yet, it was only when George Bush and Tony Blair committed to ‘regime change’ that tens of millions of human-rights loving, liberal oil gluttons in the West flooded the streets and campuses with placards in that read “no blood for oil”.
The protests preceeding the 2003 Iraq intervention that took place in Europe and England and America and the ‘arab street’ combined represented the largest mass-movement of its kind in recorded History: even larger than the second largest mass-movement of people in human History that took place in 1991—when millions of Kurds fled to higher ground after the First Gulf War when Saddam Hussein's regime retaliated against the Kurdish uprising. Imagine that. Crazy huh?
Which really does beg the question, doesn't it: why does this herd of the indulgent and indignant human-rights loving anti-imperialists of the world hate freedom even more than they hate stealing other peoples oil while imposing ‘genocidal sanctions’ and supporting genocidal dictatorships and causing civil wars and failed-states etc.?
Is it because you hate it when multinationals like BP and the China National Petroleum Corporation have to compete with other multinationals to obtain the rights to drill in rumaila—the mother of all oil fields in Iraq? Are you sure you're not a bit overprotective of your country's big corporations like BP—do you, or do you not, in fact, hate that your BP had to join forces with a Chinese state-owned oil company to outbid the American corporate owned oil companies like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron—which, btw, were the two oil companies that enjoyed a 2/3rds monopoly of the oil exported through the UN ‘Oil-for-Food’ programme. But thanks to George Bush and Tony Bliar, the two largest American owned companies both lost out and now have to compete with the likes of China and BP—which had to outbid Shell and Exxon and Chevron and now only gets to keep £2 per barrel—a far cry from the crooked ‘50-50’ arrangement that Anglo-Iranian enjoyed under the Shah after Mossadegh was deposed (sorry, gone are those days: that's not how things work in a democracy...but at least now you can fill up at the pump and heat your home with a cleaner conscience—now that you are helping to fill the coffers of a democracy instead of a genocidal dictatorship.)
The cost of No-Fly Zones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones
The human cost of sanctions: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html
The human cost of a foreign military intervention that enabled them to transition from three decades of an ethnic cleansing fascist regime to a democratically elected one: http://www.iraqbodycount.org
Which of those did you oppose the most and when? And how much of their oil did you help yourself to in the meanwhile before you finally protested either the US/UK/UN sanctions and/or America's “unilateral” intervention that enabled the first radical revolution of the new century?—(*the one that you opposed...)
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Christian
http://a.abcnews.com/images/TheLaw/ht_kkk_070726_ms.jpg
Christian
"the idea of attacking a police funeral was one of numerous scenarios discussed as ways to go after law enforcement officers, the indictment said. Other scenarios included using a fake emergency call to lure an officer to his or her death, killing an officer after a traffic stop or an attacking on the family of a police officer.
Once other officers gathered for a slain officer's funeral, the group planned to detonate homemade bombs at the funeral, killing scores more, according to the indictment."
http://media2.myfoxchicago.com//photo/2010/03/29/HUTAREEMUGS_20100329155206_320_240.JPG
Christian
Christian
Christian ( lucky its looks less horrible with the bodies gone now..just the blood)
http://werzit.com/intel/terrorism/groups/Army_of_God/
all Christians above
Christian
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I am not getting what you are trying to convey. I assume its me because past experience tells me that you usually communicate in ways that can be understood. So I am sorry I don't get what you are saying and maybe you can explain it to me better.
A few posts back I thought I saw you complaining that muslims were being lumped in with terrorists.
And then in this post it appeared to me that you were lumping 6 billion Christians in with terrorists. Did I just miss the sarcasm?
Even calling the perpetrators of the acts you posted (lumping those terrorists in with Christians) would be incorrect since by definition Christians are followers of Christ and by their actions those perps (I always wanted to use that word in a sentence since I hear it on tv all the time) prove themselves to NOT be followers of Christ. IF we accept the rhetoric of the terrorists who call themselves Army of God and believe them when they claim to be Christians then we are playing into their hands and ascribing to them more credibility than they deserve.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I find that to be truly eye opening. Unfortunately, not very useful so long as most countries are not even listed. As it stands it probably tells us more about the countries on the list than it does about theocrats.
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the forum Dewey. I like how you provided a lot of support for the points you were making.
