Time To Drop The Gloves On Islamic Extremists ?

zzand · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 7:39 pm

True, today's Catholics are perverts who rape little boys and girls then then run and hide so they don't have to pay for their crimes. let's face it on a whole, the Catholic cult is a mess, in ancient times and now. And again I am talking Popes ordering mass murders of those who opposed the Cahtolic chruch...You guys can spin it all you want the facts are there in writing. It is historical knowledge and while I feel bad for those who are followers of the Cathlic faith, facts is facts. Your Popes ordered literally tens of thousands killed in the name of the religion. You can't change history and it is there in black and white.

Lemontin · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 7:45 pm

Sometimes in an effort to edit for length, I edit out important things and leave in unimportant things.. my mistake.

Audiophile kinda of helped say what I was trying to say and did it better and with fewer words.

My whole point is that I am wary of taking the gloves off the "Islamic extremists" because I do not know who or what they are, so how can I do that?
Right before 9/11 I was talking to a co-worker and I told him how much I admired people of the Islamic faith. Of course that was thrown up in my face afterwards but I'm still convinced that's not their real faith. If I had more time I'd study it but other things are more important to me.

My own faith has been hijacked by political or warring extremists for their own gain and I believe the same might be said for Islam. Revox himself said as much when he blamed "christianity" and "christian values" for more wars etc. than everyone. I understand what he's saying, but factualy it's incorrect. Any Christian who kills or tortures another in the name of faith, is by definition not a Christian. That's like saying I'm a peace lov'n' guy while I'm smashing someones face in, the two are incongruent.

And no offense to Revox but I'd hate it to be he, or someone who believes like him to decide what an extremist is, because he has my faith wrong. So who's to say who can say..?? But I then had to add that if it wasn't for MY faith's efforts, he couldn't read this, or write a response. But that always gets ignored in favor of those who hijacked Christianity for their own gain. And that list is truly endless..

Lemontin · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 7:55 pm

zzand wrote:

Nope, I am talking the Vatican, it's allies and the Catholics....I know what I am referring to and I said what I was referring to. They have a long bloody history of warring against those who didn't believe as they did. Murder, Mass Murders, Torture, Progroms, they did it all in the name of their religion and thanks to the Masons, many were saved from certain death at the hands of them. Not Rome, if I had meant Rome I would have said Rome..

Please refrain from telling me what I think, especially when I have a stack of history books on that very subject in my possession that I am reading right now. You also might try a better source than Wikipedia....Not very trustworthy since anyone can update and change. Books written during the time by great minds who lived through the horrors of the actions taken by the Catholic religious leaders in the Vatican however are slightly more reliable.

zzand, in an effort not to offend people, I avoided saying that I do not consider Catholicisim to be equal to Christianity. I see it as one of the greatest hijackers of the faith. So I reject your premise.

I am NOT saying individual Catholics are not Christians, I've known many who are in fact great Christians and I admire them. I'm saying as an overall religion, it's not consistent with the Bible and that's what Martin Luther and others fought against. Some of those died fighting that cause because they were murdered.. for words.. by the Pope's.

That tends to piss people off and I'm sorry. But the whole Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility, of Mariology (perpetual virginity.. Mary in a Tub etc.), making priets stay unmarried etc. is IMO, whacked .. and is in fact, inconsistent with the Bible. The infallibility of the Pope, the forced unmarried Priest, and statues of Mary are in direct opposition to the Bible. Then there's all the murder you mentioned...

zzand · **Posted:** Tue May 18, 2010 5:41 am

You can reject all you want, you are not an authority on anything to sit there in judgement and say I reject and I don't care if I offend anyone. The Vatican is harboring pedophiles and is mounting a Defense of them. THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. The Vatican needs to let these people go through the justice system and get what is coming to them. But they will pay millions to shut mouths. Is this what God would do? The Jews have no issues in saying they have killed for religion, as do others, how about the Catholics pull their heads out of ther asses and be honest for once....

You reject my premise..Who are you to reject anything you pompus blowhard

Lemontin · **Posted:** Tue May 18, 2010 7:35 pm

I reject your premise that Catholics speak for, or are models for Christians or Christian behaviour. That's what I inferred from your post. What Catholics do has no reflection on Christianity because their dogma is not consistent with the Bible, ergo, the religion is not Christianity. That is all I meant. Pompus, yes, blow hard.. no.

Several hundred years ago I would have been murdered for saying that!

I'm just saying I do not appreciate my faith being labled by what Catholic Church does any more than a Muslim might not appreciate what ______ (taliban,, or whomever) is doing. The Catholic heirechy is not Christian, are the taliban or terrorists truly Muslim? It's easy for the press or net idiots to pontificate about what the Koran says, or the Bible.. we all know parts of it, but what is the overall meaning? A few small things taken out of context does not a religion or dogma make.

Until that is solved, taking the gloves off can really only be done after the fact. And yes, I realize that's a problem.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Lemontin wrote:

taking the gloves off can really only be done after the fact. And yes, I realize that's a problem.

At this time we aren't dropping the gloves after the fact either. If we were, after capture, they would be treated as enemy combatants and not common criminals.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

REVOX wrote:

I say fry them damn towel heads. Right Bryce? Screw 'em. Torture them. Abuse them. Then kill them before they kill us.

That's the American (American Values) Way.

Towel Head? :eek

I haven't heard that one in years.

No where did I advocate screwing, torture, abuse or killing captured enemy combatants. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Barney Hole · **Joined:** Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:11 pm **Posts:** 580

Then when you're fininshed, rip the towels off their heads, wipe your ass with 'em and then stuff 'em into their mouths.

Lemontin · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 1:35 am

Bryce wrote:

Lemontin wrote:

taking the gloves off can really only be done after the fact. And yes, I realize that's a problem.

At this time we aren't dropping the gloves after the fact either. If we were, after capture, they would be treated as enemy combatants and not common criminals.

You are probably correct.

I ownder would "enemy combatant" mean protection under the Geneva Convention?
I'm not trying to be contentious, but am truly wondering this.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Lemontin wrote:

I ownder would "enemy combatant" mean protection under the Geneva Convention?
I'm not trying to be contentious, but am truly wondering this.

If you check article four of the Geneva Convention, which defines a prisoner of war, a person committing a covert act would not be covered. Persons engaged in clandestine activities, without a uniform, would be classified along the same lines as a spy.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

REVOX wrote:

You are a Conservative, right?

You support using the term "Enemy Combatant"?

According to every AG since Ashcroft, they have no rights as well as an adminstration that authorized torture to those "EC's"

Guilty by association.

NO ONE authorized torture. Because certian people in the press and the far left choose to call it that, doesn't make it so.

zzand · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 8:15 am

Dick Cheney, Good American? :lol

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

Except for the unauthorized use of torture at Abu Ghraib, the participants of which were duly punished, I'm not aware of other acts of torture visited upon captured enemy combatants.

Before you trot out the tired and worn water-boarding thing, if water-boarding were indeed torture, then tens of thousands of military personnel, both past and present, who undergo water-boarding as part of their training, would be able to bring charges. Isn't it odd that NONE of them have? Oh wait, maybe it's not torture.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

REVOX wrote:

Some people who have more experience in this area besides your arm chair experience disagree.

When you have done it, received it and lived to tell about it, THEN you can defend it.

As for military personel bringing charges, they CONSENT to it you fool.

Consent? Believe me when I tell you there is no option to "opt out" of that portion of the training program for certain specialties.

REVOX wrote:

Right, never "authorized" but you guys that think there should be two classes of people, those without rights and those with, as long as you are good Christians, see it as acceptable behavior. Why? Because you wanted to stay the course. Those great American Values the Republicans represent.

No, there are three classes of people. Those with rights as an American citizen or are under our jurisdiction, those with rights encompassed within the Geneva Convention and those that are spy's, saboteurs or guerillas and do not qualify for civil-rights of any kind.

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1453

REVOX wrote:

Must have missed that memo where it appointed you God.....

Neither I, nor my wife (god), had anything to do with the above statement. They are simply as things stand as laid out by your beloved COTUS, the Geneva Convention and historical precedence.

REVOX wrote:

I hear Gitmo is nice this time of year.

Indeed, much nicer than many places our own citizens live.

Time To Drop The Gloves On Islamic Extremists ?

Who is online