BREAKING NEWS FROM FOX !! MASS Shooting at Ft.Hood in Killeen Texas !!

[King 5.45]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

All who keep bring up the KKK forget after the war of northern aggression. In the south an African-American was not considered human. So he didn't have a soul and was nothing more then property that could be destroyed.

Islam feels the same way about anyone who doesn't worship Allah.


Someone said if we stayed out of the middle east we wouldn't have this problem. Maybe your right however if we'd have sided with the Arabs in the six day war we wouldn't have these problem's, If we're there or we're not there the problem still exist. If we pull out maybe Israel ceases to exist which is what the Islamic countries want.

For the Arabs on the board WHY don't you come out and say that's what you want Israel out of the Middle East and America to stop helping them. So Islam can destroy them. You have a devout follower in Ahmadinejad who keeps saying the Holocaust didn't exist.

And no I'm not Jewish.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://story.afghanistansun.com/inde...d/564179/cs/1/


Taliban message promises Fort Hood massacre repeat
Afghanistan Sun
Wednesday 11th November, 2009
(ANI)



Fort Hood (Texas, US), Nov.11 : The Taliban has claimed there would be more attacks like the Fort Hood shootings unless Washington ends its policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a report.

It also described the US army psychiatrist who carried out the massacre in Texas as a "hero".

The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist websites, said it had picked up a Taliban message praising the attack.ccording to The Telegraph, the message said: "The recent attack on the military base in Texas warns that if the occupation policy of the American rulers continues in this way, without them folding the carpets of occupation and transgression in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is natural then that incidents and attacks similar to Texas will spread to the Pentagon and other American military centres."

A Muslim psychiatrist and a major in the American army, Nidal Malik Hasan, killed 13 people and wounded 29 in the attack last Thursday at America's largest military base. He was due to be deployed to Afghanistan later this month.

Law enforcement agencies have said he acted alone and was not directed by al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Hasan has emerged from a coma after being shot four times by two civilian police officers. He has invoked his right to a lawyer and investigators are still waiting to interview him.

So, Larry, tell me, how many "Arabs" do you think we have hiding in the woodpile out back?

[Swarner793]

Originally Posted by King 5.45

So, Larry, tell me, how many "Arabs" do you think we have hiding in the woodpile out back?

I don't know about any woodpile, but there are none in Franklin Twp., Lycoming County. I checked.

Be safe (or, at least, on the safe side).

Scott

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

Islam feels the same way about anyone who doesn't worship Allah.

And I always thought only bone headed God talkers are that stupid ... my bad.


Jan

[headcase]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

IMHO the problem with this whole incident isn't that a Muslim went nuts and shot up a bunch of the people. The problem is that none of the servicemen or women, trained in the use of weapons, are allowed to carry a sidearm on base. WTF? Where's the logic? And once again, such rules only hurt those who are willing to follow them, because the shooter obviously wasn't worried about the rules.

Here's a little light reading for those interested (note this is an editorial of sorts):
Clinton-Bush Gun Control Enabled Fort Hood Massacre

I don't know about anyone else, but when I picture being on a military base in my mind, I picture walking past hundreds of ARMED soldiers. That's just me, I guess I'm the crazy one.

One gun, just one gun in their capable hands could have ended the entire thing before so many were killed and injured.

Should be that way during times of war, in times of peace there should only be skeleton forces. In any event, were the citizens allowed to be armed in the way they are supposed to be, both civilians and active military would not be subject to these type of ridiculous shooting galleries. You will never stop people who want to kill other people from doing so, what you can do, is limit the scope of the damage they can cause by having the means to defeat them close at hand.

Nice try at getting the thread BOT, but I am afraid it is a lost cause...

+1000 or so anyway

[King 5.45]

Originally Posted by King 5.45

So, Larry, tell me, how many "Arabs" do you think we have hiding in the woodpile out back?

Originally Posted by Swarner793

I don't know about any woodpile, but there are none in Franklin Twp., Lycoming County. I checked.

Be safe (or, at least, on the safe side).

Scott

Larry seems to think that anyone on the board who speaks of moderate behavior towards inoffensive and peaceful Muslims is most likely an "Ay-rab," too.

Hoo-dawgies, we got us a live one on, boys!

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by King 5.45

Larry seems to think that anyone on the board who speaks of moderate behavior towards inoffensive and peaceful Muslims is most likely an "Ay-rab," too.

Hoo-dawgies, we got us a live one on, boys!

Yep you got a live one !! Why is it you don't dispute the facts I presented ?? Instead you make fun and try to deflect the truth. Arabs in the woodpile to many willing to blow themselves up and take innocent men woman and children with them if this is a wrong fact ? Why ?? Is this wrong show me where.

1. WHY don't you come out and say that's what you want Israel out of the Middle East and America to stop helping them. So Islam can destroy them. You have a devout follower in Ahmadinejad who keeps saying the Holocaust didn't exist.

2. Maybe its this story
http://story.afghanistansun.com/inde...d/564179/cs/1/

3. Fatwa Watch 2

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...a_Watch_2&only
Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 10:49:13 am PDT

Muslim “scholars” in India have issued a death fatwa against author and women’s rights activist Taslima Nareen.

NEW DELHI, Aug 18 (APP): Taslima Nasreen, an exiled controversial Bangladeshi writer, who is in India, has asked the Indian government to provide her security in the wake of the Fatwa for death to her, issued by Indian Muslim scholars for writing a blasphemous book

4. EGYPT: Fatwa issued against secular author
http://www.copts.co.uk/index.php?opt...=1447&Itemid=2

Written by Amro Hassan
Los Angeles Times
27 July 2009


Egypt's Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa
Photo: Credit: BBC

The Egyptian Islamic Legislation Authority has declared writer and researcher Sayed Kemny a criminal and an infidel, saying he doubts and has repudiated Islam.

The fatwa, which comes nearly a month after the author was granted Egypt's 2009 State Incentive Prize in sociology, was issued last week in a response to a letter sent to the Islamic Legislation Authority inquiring about the religious consequences for someone who denounces Islam in his books.

5. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58225025.html

A London-based Muslim group has sentenced to death the American author of a play depicting Jesus as a homosexual. The group, Al-Muhajiroun, which describes itself as the Defenders of the Messenger Jesus, said Jesus is considered an important prophet in Islam and that classical and modern Islamic authorities agree that capital punishment is the prescribed penalty for insulting a messenger of God.

6. Ahmed Salman Rushdie

His fourth novel, The Satanic Verses (1988), was the center of The Satanic Verses controversy, with protests from Muslims in several countries. Some of the protests were violent, with Rushdie facing death threats and a fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in February 1989.

7. Fatwa against Shabana Azmi

Film actress Shabana Azmi has earned the wrath of the mullahs in Hyderabad because she tonsured her head for her role in the controversial film, Water.

8. Malaysia Issues Fatwa On Ghosts

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/166390

Well, there have been fatwa's against authors, fatwa's against Muslim's marrying Buddhists, and even a fatwa against urinating while standing up. The latest to be added to the long list of don'ts for Muslims ... ghosts.

9. Report: Muslim Cleric Issues Fatwa Against Bollywood Star for Wax Figure

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325292,00.html

Bollywood star Salman Khan had a fatwa issued against him for allowing Madame Tussauds in London to make his image in wax, the Daily Mail reported.

10. The Deobandi fatwa


The fatwa defined terrorism as violence "targeting innocent people." Such a definition is not new and doesn't set clear boundaries. For the question at hand is what does "innocent" mean? On several web sites and on many shows on al Jazeera television, Jihadi apologists often use the Arabic term"bare'e" for "innocent" and assure the audience that Jihad cannot target the latter.


But Usama Bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, and to some extent Hassan Nasrallah, all claim that innocence is relative. Al Qaeda explicitly targets innocent civilians and has authorized the massacre of 4 million US citizens as of 2001. Bin laden explains that civilians who vote for and pay taxes to the infidel enemy are not "innocent."


Hezbollah targets innocent civilians as well, not only in Israel but also in Lebanon and overseas (as in Argentina). The concept of "innocent" isn't that innocent in Jihadism. For the militant ideologues can render individuals and groups "bare'e' or not "bare'e" at their discretion.


Leading Islamist scholar Sheikh Yusuf al Qardawi expounds at will on the innocence of civilians, detailing how civilian populations have been considered as part of the war efforts of the enemies of the Caliphate. In short, the status of "innocence" doesn't overlap fully with the status of "civilians." It is a matter of discretion in Jihadi warfare. Hence, to claim that Terrorism is defined as targeting innocent people is to claim that not all civilians are innocent, and that not only breaches international law, but gives credence to Jihadi violence.


Who is a "terrorist"?


Moreover, still the fatwa doesn't identify al Qaeda, or any other similar group, including the Taliban, as Terrorist organizations. And as of now, no subsequent fatwas based on this Deobandi fatwa have done so yet. Therefore, in terms of identification of terror entities, the edict has failed to show its followers who is the terror perpetrator.


This text simply doesn't bring novelty to the debate about Jihadi-rooted Terrorism. For years, particularly since 2001, Islamist ideologues and militant groups have refrained from simply naming those terror groups as such. Spokespersons have constantly repeated that condemning terrorism in general is enough.


If the Muslim scholars followed this logic on the question of occupations, then neither Iraq nor Palestine should be specifically mention. But that is not the case.


Legal basis


The Deobandi fatwa didn't explain what where the legal basis for the edict. Was there any new ground broken? Which were the previous rules that have changed regarding terrorism? Is the fatwa a reminder of a principle or a new principle to be adopted? Is the rejection of terrorism a duty (wajib) and what kind of obligation?


All these questions are warranted so that a fair assessment of the statement can be issued. Unfortunately, the legal grounds are not specific enough to enable readers -- and eventually followers -- to understand the absolute injunction of rejection of Terrorism.

11. Muhammad Anwar Al Sadat, or Anwar El Sadat (Arabic: محمد أنور السادات‎, Muḥammad Anwar as-Sādāt)

His visit to Israel and the eventual Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty won him the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience award posthumously, but was an act enormously unpopular with the Arab world and Islamists, and resulted in Egypt being expelled from the Arab League.

A fatwā approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the U.S. for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Peaceful my ass lets kill anyone who writes what we don't like (So I guess I'll make the fatwa list) or draws a picture we don't like.

Refute these facts !!!!!! I know they prove nothing Islam is a peaceful religion. Like I said in previous post I have friends who are Muslims but I hold no illusions that if the Holy Man stands up in Mecca and says Jihad I'd have to watch my back because they couldn't protect me

[Eugene V. Debs]

What the fuck, larry?

This is one Ay-rab that's done defending you.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by 1861

I have been a Christian for nigh on 50 years . I investigated many Klansman in the 30 years I was LEO . I can state emphatically they were not Christian .

Did they consider themselves to be Christian? Whether you subjectively considered them to be Christian or not is irrelevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[1861]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Did they consider themselves to be Christian? Whether you subjectively considered them to be Christian or not is irrelevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

It was relevant to me .

If you tell me you are an alien from Mars it still doesn't make it so .

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by 1861

It was relevant to me .

If you tell me you are an alien from Mars it still doesn't make it so .

Okay, so only those who define Christianity exactly as 1861 does are Christians. Which of the following are or are not Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sects_of_Christianity

It may take you a while to get through that whole list-- I'll be patient.

And when you're done with that, perhaps you can tell me who the true Muslims are too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic...s_and_branches

And Buddhists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sects_of_Buddhism

You can tackle Hindus and Jews too if you like. And then when you're done with all that you explain to us why your personal definition of who is a Christian and who isn't should serve as an objective definition for the rest of us on PAFOA, rather than simply defining people's religious identification by, ya know, how they identify themselves.

And if you can't handle that perhaps you should stop insisting that you know that Klansmen who call themselves Christians aren't really Christian.