Two gunmen carrying explosives attack anti Muslim art contest in Texas

[Zippyjuan]

Christianity went through a reformation while Islam never had to, which would explain the disparate thresholds in tolerance. The Bible grants moral authority to exterminate homosexuals, yet surprisingly enough we aren't inundated with killings.

Secondly, they don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather they hate us for offending Allah.

Link?
Doesn't it say something like "thou shalt not kill"?

History is littered with wars fought over disagreements on what God wants and has said.

 

[AuH20]

Link?
Doesn't it say something like "thou shalt not kill"?

History is littered with wars fought over disagreements on what God wants and has said.

Leviticus 20:13.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It's pretty clear.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Christianity went through a reformation while Islam never had to, which would explain the disparate thresholds in tolerance. The Bible grants moral authority to exterminate homosexuals, yet surprisingly enough we aren't inundated with killings.

Secondly, they don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather they hate us for offending Allah.

I suppose, only because there are plenty of other enemies.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Christianity went through a reformation while Islam never had to, which would explain the disparate thresholds in tolerance. The Bible grants moral authority to exterminate homosexuals, yet surprisingly enough we aren't inundated with killings.

Secondly, they don't hate us for our freedoms, but rather they hate us for offending Allah.

Last sentence is only partly true that renders it somewhat fallacious as an argument as it ignores the bigger reality. If you challenge this reading, how many terror attacks on America have occured for offending Allah and how many for financing slaughter of Palestinians or an due to an invasion/occupation





Glenn Greenwald, Iranian Government in Agreement Regarding Charlie Hebdo Cartoons

 

[wizardwatson]

Link?
Doesn't it say something like "thou shalt not kill"?

History is littered with wars fought over disagreements on what God wants and has said.

God gave all sorts of authority through Moses to the Jewish nation. However, the jewish nation, the 'real' Israel, was scattered, cursed, and destroyed. No nation, including the imposter nation now calling itself Israel, gets "authority" from those old Jewish laws. The only authority in the Bible is from who the bible says has the authority which is your master Jesus (or if you reject, your master the devil). And no, Jesus most definitely would not allow hating, much less killing, of homosexuals.

Jesus abrogated some Mosaic moral law (to say nothing of the fact that he most certainly didn't condone the judgements), there's no telling how much since they've tried to remove his influence for the last 2000 years.

 

[Pericles]

I also think this could be done for any religion or color of skin. If you show up to cause harm because you are offended then you are a nut.

Think of it as two people offended by the 1st Amendment were rapidly introduced to the 2nd.

 

[wizardwatson]

Think of it as two people offended by the 1st Amendment were rapidly introduced to the 2nd.

And people are saying I'm off base by pointing out that "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" is now a common theme at RPF.

Cognitive dissonance overload at RPF these days.

 

[AuH20]

This little discussed historical breakdown of Muslim imperialism sounds more like the modern-day U.S. 'empire' (Civil War and on), but with an extreme religious bent.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/whitewashing-muslim-imperialism/

Reckless power grabs and starting imperial wars of distraction? Where did I read that?

It should be noted that contemporary non-Muslim accounts further validate the facts of the conquests. The writings of the Christian bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius (d.638), for instance, or the chronicles of the Byzantine historian Theophanes (d.758), to name a couple, make clear that Muslims conquered much of what is today called the “Muslim world.”

According to the Muslim historical tradition, the majority of non-Muslim peoples of the Old World, not desiring to submit to Islam or its laws (Sharia), fought back, though most were eventually defeated and subsumed.

The first major conquest, renowned for its brutality, occurred in Arabia itself, immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632. Many tribes which had only nominally accepted Islam’s authority, upon Muhammad’s death, figured they could break away; however, Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the “Ridda Wars” (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam. [PARALLELS TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR]

The Ridda Wars ended around 634. To keep the Arab Muslims from quarreling, the next caliph, Omar, launched the Muslim conquests: Syria was conquered around 636, Egypt 641, Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire, 650. By the early 8th century, all of north Africa and Spain to the west, and the lands of central Asia and India to the east, were also brought under Islamic suzerainty.

Sounds like vassal states like the EU?

The colorful accounts contained in the Muslim tradition are typified by constant warfare, which normally goes as follows: Muslims go to a new region and offer the inhabitants three choices: 1) submit (i.e., convert) to Islam; 2) live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis,” paying special taxes and accepting several social debilitations; 3) fight to the death.

Brown Man's burden? Sounds like Kipling before Kipling even existed...

It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means “openings”—that is, the countries conquered were “opened” for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is nothing to regret or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as for the good of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today’s Muslims).

 

[pcosmar]

I make the score as Texas = 2 and ISIS adherents = 0. Still in the first quarter.

Where do you get that?

There were no ISIS adherents.

There were two FBI incited idiots..

and the government wins again

 

[pcosmar]

Think of it as two people offended by the 1st Amendment were rapidly introduced to the 2nd.

NO they weren't.

The 2nd amendment was not involved,, nor was the First.

You can not provoke violence and then claim self defense.

and government mercenaries are not what the 2nd amendment is there to protect.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

The SJW, pro-Islam, anti-white crowd never admits to wanting the state to censor people. Make no mistake, if they were in power (which seems more like a horrifying inevitability with each passing day), they would censor the hell out of everyone they don't like - mainly "breeder cisscum white males". Their main goal, however, is to create a culture of self-censorship, where people are too afraid to express themselves, so the state need not get involved. This is the epitome of the "I'm all for free speech, but..." assholes who have apparently now infected the libertarian movement. Leftytarianism is a cancer that needs to be cut out.

 

[Uriel999]

2 assholes are dead. What is the problem?

You have the right to be offended, and you have the right to be a dick. Nobody has the right to violence except in self defense. This is pretty cut and dry.

 

[juleswin]

The SJW, pro-Islam, anti-white crowd never admits to wanting the state to censor people. Make no mistake, if they were in power (which seems more like a horrifying inevitability with each passing day), they would censor the hell out of everyone they don't like - mainly "breeder cisscum white males". Their main goal, however, is to create a culture of self-censorship, where people are too afraid to express themselves, so the state need not get involved. This is the epitome of the "I'm all for free speech, but..." assholes who have apparently now infected the libertarian movement. Leftytarianism is a cancer that needs to be cut out.

You know, you can't just call anyone that disagrees with you a SJW. That word means something and I am yet to see anyone that I could consider a SJW on this site. Also, you don't have to defend Ms Geller, she got exactly what she was looking for, she paid for her own protect and didn't really cost me anything. But I would still prefer that a big shoot out where everybody from both camp dies, but everyday is not christmas.

The funny thing is that people like Ms Geller is the reason why the US has so many non white refugees, yet people like white knight for her every time she damsels. They start war after war in brown countries and then when things go bad, the traitors that helped them fuck their own people up have to run for safety and they run to the US.

So keep supporting people like her and then wonder why so many non whites are coming to your white countries.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

You know, you can't just call anyone that disagrees with you a SJW. That word means something and I am yet to see anyone that I could consider a SJW on this site. Also, you don't have to defend Ms Geller, she got exactly what she was looking for, she paid for her own protect and didn't really cost me anything. But I would still prefer that a big shoot out where everybody from both camp dies, but everyday is not christmas.

I could name a few legit SJWs on this site. That tumblrista twat Rothbardian Girl comes to mind. The thing that's so insidious about it though, is that they aren't SJWs, but they've internalized social justice narratives without even realizing it. These narratives are simply becoming the mainstream as my millenial generation marches onward toward maturity. You don't have to be an SJW, if you're under 30 the chances are you believe in a ton of their bullshit without necessarily identifying with them, especially when it comes to race, gender and religion.

The funny thing is that people like Ms Geller is the reason why the US has so many non white refugees, yet people like white knight for her every time she damsels. They start war after war in brown countries and then when things go bad, the traitors that helped them fuck their own people up have to run for safety and they run to the US.

So keep supporting people like her and then wonder why so many non whites are coming to your white countries.

Insofar as Geller supports the warfare state, I do not support her. I am very anti-Islam, but I am not pro-war.

The reason that there's so much nonwhite immigration is because the US doesn't think demographics are important. If we had the laws that were on the books pre-1965, there would be very little immigration from nonwhite countries, regardless of what foreign policy is enacted.

 

[Smitty]

I'm totally in favor of free speech. But it's probably not a good idea to attend any event that has been organized by radical Jews for the purpose of stirring up Muslims.

 

[juleswin]

I could name a few legit SJWs on this site. That tumblrista twat Rothbardian Girl comes to mind. The thing that's so insidious about it though, is that they aren't SJWs, but they've internalized social justice narratives without even realizing it. These narratives are simply becoming the mainstream as my millenial generation marches onward toward maturity. You don't have to be an SJW, if you're under 30 the chances are you believe in a ton of their bullshit without necessarily identifying with them, especially when it comes to race, gender and religion.

Rothbardian girl who I haven't seen in the forum for weeks now, I haven't read a lot of her posts but so I am not sure if she qualifies. I am not quite sure what the definition is exactly but I think it means more than sympathizing with groups that have recently faced different levels of injustice. The point I am trying to make is that you are throwing around that word where it doesn't apply. Like any of the response from this thread. Nothing social justice in saying she was asking for it and got what she wanted. If anything, its the SJW's who think actions don't have consequences.

Insofar as Geller supports the warfare state, I do not support her. I am very anti-Islam, but I am not pro-war.

The reason that there's so much nonwhite immigration is because the US doesn't think demographics are important. If we had the laws that were on the books pre-1965, there would be very little immigration from nonwhite countries, regardless of what foreign policy is enacted.

The ironic part about you hating Islam is that they type of Islam that supposedly struck in Texas is the type that is most similar to the paleo type ideology. These people want to be left alone, they don't want to mix with your culture or race. They just want to live peacefully in their own part of the world and not be disturbed by the west or anybody for that matter. If you really understood them, I am sure you find so many areas of agreement with them.

How would the immigration policy pre 1965 make it harder for non whites to come into the US. I really would like to know.

 

[phill4paul]

Leviticus 20:13.



It's pretty clear.

Something happened between the O.T. and today. I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps a Christian might have a clue.

 

[alucard13mm]

If we worry about offending muslims with drawings of muhammad, thus we should ban drawings depicting muhammad. What if muslims are offended by the constitution? Perhaps because we dont want to offend them all the time with the constitution, lets ban the constitution. gg

 

[mad cow]

If somebody went to a Muslim baker and requested a cake with Muhammad wearing a bomb for a turban on it,Could the Government fine him if he refused to bake it?

 

[alucard13mm]

Blaming the Mohammed art contest is like saying the art contest deserved it because they offended people to act in a violent way.

Okay. By that logic, we can blame rape victims. We can say rape victims dressed too sexy, which gave the rapist the wrong idea!

Both the mohammed contest and the rape victim did nothing wrong. They both were practicing their freedoms without hurting anyone. but they both got attacked.