Islam, the sneaky buggers

[GostHacked]

ScottSA

The west is the arbiter of it's own freedoms, is it not? And if it is right to have freedom, then why should it not be the arbiter of freedom? Or are you suggesting that serfdom is better, or, alternatively, that only you and your kind should have freedom but no one else should?

Change comes from within. Not by force from without.

Tbud. You and I are in the same thinking. I am glad someone else can see through the lies that are delivered to us through the main stream media. And Moxie, his post makes complete sense to me. Maybe I can be a somewhat neutral party to any religion. Although, I have through various media, been exopsed to Christianity, Catholosism, and Judiasm for the most part. But never took part in religious activities. I only see one side trashing the other side, to win some battle. Wether it be politicaly, militarily, democraticly, economically. It all comes down to, if it is you or me, who would you choose. And the propaganda that is slammed in our faces just shows us, that Islam... is THEM, not us. So.... there you go.

All religions are sneaky, and all religions are buggers.

Micheal Hardner. I live in Ottawa, and there is a large population of Muslims in the city. Man, I have YET to see one of these people just get up and scream ALLAH ACKBAR and blow themselves up. I am sure if it happened, you would hear about it. Anyways, I could say BOO to most of these so called terrorists and they would run away. Even the most westurbanized Muslim teens are just like every other snotty nosed stuck up "I am da shiz" kid. And guess what. They are getting more westurbanized faster than the east is getting fundamentalisizezesssed.

And yes, it seems that there have been more brutal attacks on the mainland US by white dudes who where NOT muslim, than there were by Muslims on the US mainland.

Who the hell is the threat again? Jews? Commies? Blacks? Muslims? . . . . . . . . The Swiss?

[bush_cheney2004]

Keep in mind that before 9/11 the largest loss of life from a terrorist attack on US soil was due to the actions of a white Christian male who was a member of a right wing militia. Oddly enough the first group to be blamed after Oklahoma was the Muslims...

OK...keep in mind that after 9/11, the largest loss of life from a terrorist attack on US soil was due to the actions of Muslim males.

[Argus]

ever notice, scottsa, continuously portrays islam as the religion of violence, BUT, we see the "christian" nations and there Pentagon indoctrinated christian soldiers ilegally invading and killing people, under bogus, trumped up reasoning.

No, I don't see that. But then I'm sane.

[Argus]

His argument is entirely circular. Muslims are prone to evil acts because of their religion, he says, and the root cause is their holy book. If you point to other holy books that contain similar exhortations to evil, then the argument comes that those books don't cause violence because their adherents don't commit evil acts.

Nonsense. The difference is first a matter of degree. The Muslim holy book was written by a warrior in times of war - unlike other major religious texts. That's a huge difference. Its holiest icon converted whole cities by the sword, and lopped off the heads of those who refused. I mean, sure there's violence in the Bible, but only a fraction of what is in the Muslim texts. More importantly, I think, is that the West became socially advanced enough to reinterpret their religious texts and ignore the violent bits. That has not happened amongst the Muslims. In fact, they are reinterpreting their texts on a stricter and more orthodox scale all the time.

Basically, he doesn't like them, and that's what is behind all of his arguments.

That's simplistic. That's like saying I don't like Nazis, and that's why I say bad things about them. Maybe you should examine WHY so many people would dislike Muslims.

There's nothing reasoned, or thought out about it. He wants to be able to call them racial epithets whenever he likes, because he hates them, period.

That's even more simplistic - and dumb - given Muslims belong to a variety of races. Muslims are not being judged by their race, but by their actions and words. And that's the absolute truth.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And yes, it seems that there have been more brutal attacks on the mainland US by white dudes who where NOT muslim, than there were by Muslims on the US mainland.

Mainland? You must be joking....the USA is more than the "mainland", and that includes embassies, bases, at-large citizens, and international interests. Are you including the Germans as "white dudes"? Don't forget to give Japan their "credit" too!

[Argus]

Well... the hatred directed towards the Jews then and the Muslims now is certainly similar.

What are you on about? Do you see Muslims being rounded up and put in concentration camps? What crap. There is no comparison, especially given that the Jews in the 30s weren't blowing up buildings and subway trains.

I would also add that both groups havae leaders who have been hiding behind religion as well. Though ask youself - could someone start a thread here titled: Judaism, the sneaky buggers - and get away with it?

I can see you trying it.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Oct 1 2007, 06:36 PM) *

His argument is entirely circular. Muslims are prone to evil acts because of their religion, he says, and the root cause is their holy book. If you point to other holy books that contain similar exhortations to evil, then the argument comes that those books don't cause violence because their adherents don't commit evil acts.

Nonsense. The difference is first a matter of degree. The Muslim holy book was written by a warrior in times of war - unlike other major religious texts. That's a huge difference. Its holiest icon converted whole cities by the sword, and lopped off the heads of those who refused. I mean, sure there's violence in the Bible, but only a fraction of what is in the Muslim texts. More importantly, I think, is that the West became socially advanced enough to reinterpret their religious texts and ignore the violent bits. That has not happened amongst the Muslims. In fact, they are reinterpreting their texts on a stricter and more orthodox scale all the time.

QUOTE

Basically, he doesn't like them, and that's what is behind all of his arguments.

That's simplistic. That's like saying I don't like Nazis, and that's why I say bad things about them. Maybe you should examine WHY so many people would dislike Muslims.

QUOTE

There's nothing reasoned, or thought out about it. He wants to be able to call them racial epithets whenever he likes, because he hates them, period.

That's even more simplistic - and dumb - given Muslims belong to a variety of races. Muslims are not being judged by their race, but by their actions and words. And that's the absolute truth.

Ok, so your argument is that the Muslim Holy book is more violent than the other holy books and that's why they're more violent. I've never heard that before. It kind of makes me wonder if Rap music causes more violence than Heavy Metal music. Or maybe it's just violent people.

Also, I don't need to examine WHY people are overly emotional and territorial. I know that some people like Scott become hysterical over things that confuse them, and that's enough. I don't need to know why Scott didn't turn out to be a hippy. Maybe a hippy kicked sand in his face at some point, how could I know ? There's nothing dumb about how he feels, it's just ... emotionality pure and simple.

[Argus]

Argus,

Ok, so your argument is that the Muslim Holy book is more violent than the other holy books and that's why they're more violent.

Not precisely. My argument is that their holy book is more violent, and that their primitive culture and religious zeal is causing them to strictly interpret the writings of a sixteenth century warrior king in a way more sophisticated cultures would not.

I've never heard that before. It kind of makes me wonder if Rap music causes more violence than Heavy Metal music. Or maybe it's just violent people.

There's a trick to mockery. If you don't do it properly you just come off looking smarmy. And you are far from mastering the knack.

Also, I don't need to examine WHY people are overly emotional and territorial. I know that some people like Scott become hysterical over things that confuse them,

Actually, those who like to discuss the problems Islam presents us with tend to do so in an unemotional, analytical and logical way, while those who defend them tend to be emotional, bitter, and insulting, with no facts at their disposal - much like your here, for example.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

Not precisely. My argument is that their holy book is more violent, and that their primitive culture and religious zeal is causing them to strictly interpret the writings of a sixteenth century warrior king in a way more sophisticated cultures would not.

Why don't you just fly the white flag and admit you're a bigot ? Islam spans many cultures. So what is it you're against ? Foreign religions or cultures ? Get it straight.

There's a trick to mockery. If you don't do it properly you just come off looking smarmy. And you are far from mastering the knack.

There's no trick to being honestly exasperated by a succession of nonsensical arguments, which is where I'm at with all of you.

Actually, those who like to discuss the problems Islam presents us with tend to do so in an unemotional, analytical and logical way, while those who defend them tend to be emotional, bitter, and insulting, with no facts at their disposal - much like your here, for example.

I'm giving you a chance to hang yourself... I mean explain yourself... After all, you [non-]bigots are the ones with rational theories to explain why you hate people who look different, so you're the ones who have the obligation to explain it.

Let's recap, then:

It's the [slightly more]violent holy books, played out by a religion in a background of inferior cultures. That's the rational explanation, as I understand it.

My version is this: You're going to take a subset of a group of people that you don't like, and hold them up as typical examples of that group without any rational basis for doing so. You're going to use irrational fear and emotionality to warn everyone that they're not like us. You're going to draw up complicated arguments that draw on events that happened at the far reaches of history, and make it seem like they're about to happen again.

But the real reason is: you don't like foreigners, and you never did. If 9/11 was done by the Japanese, you'd be advancing a similar set of arguments against them today.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But the real reason is: you don't like foreigners, and you never did. If 9/11 was done by the Japanese, you'd be advancing a similar set of arguments against them today.

Pardon me, but 9/11 was done by the Japanese (in 1941). The USA proceeded to incinerate their cities, while Canada and the US interned thousands of Japanese resident aliens and citizens alike. Okinawa is still occupied.

Edited October 3, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[ScottSA]

Also, I don't need to examine WHY people are overly emotional and territorial. I know that some people like Scott become hysterical over things that confuse them, and that's enough. I don't need to know why Scott didn't turn out to be a hippy. Maybe a hippy kicked sand in his face at some point, how could I know ? There's nothing dumb about how he feels, it's just ... emotionality pure and simple.

Why would you say I'm confused Mikey? I have more experience by an order of magnitude than you with the third world, with Muslims, and with violence. Nor have I, to my knowledge, ever behaved with any degree of "confusion." I pretty much know what I think, know what I mean to say, and unlike those you'll notice when you pass a mirror, I say it, rather than sneak around using innuendo and lies.

[jbg]

So the west is now the arbiter of freedoms for the world? So what do you do with Palestine, who as you know, elected a terrorist organization in the old fashioned western democratic way.

No, they want to restrict our freedom to choose, in our own society. For example, they want to impose Sharia on their own unwilling women.

[ScottSA]

It's the [slightly more]violent holy books, played out by a religion in a background of inferior cultures. That's the rational explanation, as I understand it.

The Koran is not "slightly more" violent than the New testament Mikey. If you don't know that, I suggest either a reading course or electric shock therapy. One says "peace" and the other says "Jihad". One has come through time interpreted as peace, and the other has come through time interpreted as Jihad, with bombs replacing swords, except in those cases where beheadings can be undertaken with paring knives for better camera effect.

But that's not really the point here, is it? We're talking about a significant and swelling number of Muslim leaders who not only talked about taking over power, but ACTED to do so. There is evidence in front of your eyes, yet you prefer to appeal to anecdotal "I know some Muslims, and they're nice, so none of this can be true." Two days in logic 101 would teach you that using a specific to argue against a general doesn't even make it off the ground, never mind fly.

The west has a superior culture to anything Islam ever spawned. Even it's alleged inventions were largely products of other civilizations. Today if anything it's worse than it ever was. I read a stat not long ago, referenced to an academic document that there are more titles published in a single year than have been published in Islamic countries since the barbarian had his first psychotic hallucination. I don't know if that means anything to you Mikey, but to me it dispells any notion of cultural relativism.

Here's some food for thought...coming from a great and prescient man long before 911:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." (Winston Churchill / 1874-1865)

[kuzadd]

No, I don't see that. But then I'm sane.

debateable?

I don't see religious fanatics as sane.

Hm, I guess you can tell alot about someone by the company they keep?

Edited October 2, 2007 by kuzadd

[Michael Hardner]

S,

The Koran is not "slightly more" violent than the New testament Mikey. If you don't know that, I suggest either a reading course or electric shock therapy. One says "peace" and the other says "Jihad". One has come through time interpreted as peace, and the other has come through time interpreted as Jihad, with bombs replacing swords, except in those cases where beheadings can be undertaken with paring knives for better camera effect.

The new testament preaches peace, but there's plenty of war in the old testament.

Argus has correctly determined that 'culture' is factor. This means that Muslims under the influence of Canadian culture are not the same as those who grow up in, say, Pakistan.

But that's not really the point here, is it? We're talking about a significant and swelling number of Muslim leaders who not only talked about taking over power, but ACTED to do so. There is evidence in front of your eyes, yet you prefer to appeal to anecdotal "I know some Muslims, and they're nice, so none of this can be true." Two days in logic 101 would teach you that using a specific to argue against a general doesn't even make it off the ground, never mind fly.

If the argument is: "Islam is fundamentally different from other religions, in that its adherents are prone to violence and unredeemable.", as yours seems to be, then a handful of westernized Muslims prove you wrong. Given that you have proposed deporting all Muslims, including those born here, it seems that you believe that none of them are any good at all.

So, to recap: Reason tells us that we can disprove the statement "All X are Y" by finding an "X" that is not "Y">

The west has a superior culture to anything Islam ever spawned. Even it's alleged inventions were largely products of other civilizations. Today if anything it's worse than it ever was. I read a stat not long ago, referenced to an academic document that there are more titles published in a single year than have been published in Islamic countries since the barbarian had his first psychotic hallucination. I don't know if that means anything to you Mikey, but to me it dispells any notion of cultural relativism.

Again, you're cherry picking certain statistics to "prove" the west is superior to another culture. Islamists do this, albeit more convincingly, when they point to the amount of decadence and pornography in western culture compared to theirs.

As for the accusation that its inventions were products of other civilizations, please tell me what culture - aside from maybe Sumarians - arrived without any influence ? Christianity grew out of Judaism, and our number system is Arabic.

Here's some food for thought...coming from a great and prescient man long before 911:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." (Winston Churchill / 1874-1865)

I have also read eloquent writings of Abraham Lincoln that assert that African Americans are a lesser race. Intelligent public figures had no qualms about expressing racist ideas back then. These days, one has to come to anonymous web board to find an intelligent and well-spoken person who's willing to express racist views.

[Canadian Blue]

Why would you say I'm confused Mikey? I have more experience by an order of magnitude than you with the third world, with Muslims, and with violence.

Strangely enough many other people have had experience in the third world and are not a bigoted as yourself. This reminds me of a similar debate where another bigot's argument was that he knows immigrants better than anyone else, and that from his "experience", they are all bad.

First ScottSA hates Muslims, now he hates Mexicans, and we also know for sure that he hates homosexuals. So why can't ScottSA just come out and admit to being a bigot as many people have figured out with the exception of a few on the far right.

The Koran is not "slightly more" violent than the New testament Mikey. If you don't know that, I suggest either a reading course or electric shock therapy. One says "peace" and the other says "Jihad". One has come through time interpreted as peace, and the other has come through time interpreted as Jihad, with bombs replacing swords, except in those cases where beheadings can be undertaken with paring knives for better camera effect.

Depends on how a person views Jihad...

I believe Jesus referred to Jews as the children of the devil. If any person wants to cherry pick verses for there own sick and twisted causes they'll find verses to back it up. I also find it interesting that ScottSA has so much in common with Muslim extremists, one only has to look at his rants against homosexuals.

The west has a superior culture to anything Islam ever spawned.

Simply because you think the west has a superior culture does not make us immune to barbarism, one only has to look at Germany.

I read a stat not long ago, referenced to an academic document that there are more titles published in a single year than have been published in Islamic countries since the barbarian had his first psychotic hallucination.

Why aren't you making the same comments about some of the figures in the Old Testament?

[ScottSA]

S,

The new testament preaches peace, but there's plenty of war in the old testament.

And there's plenty of war in the Bhagadvagita, but let's stay on topic. We were talking about Christianity, no?

Argus has correctly determined that 'culture' is factor. This means that Muslims under the influence of Canadian culture are not the same as those who grow up in, say, Pakistan.

If the argument is: "Islam is fundamentally different from other religions, in that its adherents are prone to violence and unredeemable.", as yours seems to be, then a handful of westernized Muslims prove you wrong. Given that you have proposed deporting all Muslims, including those born here, it seems that you believe that none of them are any good at all.

So, to recap: Reason tells us that we can disprove the statement "All X are Y" by finding an "X" that is not "Y">

Again we drift into logical neverneverland, I see. Are you unable to make the distinction between "Islam" and "Muslims?" It's really not hard. Islam is a regressive death cult. As numerous well thought of scholars have shown, Islam is at its core simply deified thuggery. A "handful of western muslims" merely shows that not all Muslims are willing to go to jail for being good Muslims. "Deporting all Muslims" is an unachievable dream, albeit a lovely thought, but not because I think they're going to come at me with gnashing teeth - this generation at least - but because this is a Judeo-Christian society and I want to keep it that way.

Again, you're cherry picking certain statistics to "prove" the west is superior to another culture. Islamists do this, albeit more convincingly, when they point to the amount of decadence and pornography in western culture compared to theirs.

As for the accusation that its inventions were products of other civilizations, please tell me what culture - aside from maybe Sumarians - arrived without any influence ? Christianity grew out of Judaism, and our number system is Arabic.

Yes, that's the standard reply, inevitably followed by reference to a numerology, or maps from one voyage, or some singular item that occured 100s of years ago. The very dearth of such episodes makes it rather quaint when you apologists trot them out. Btw, did you know "Arabic numerals are Hindu in origin?

I have also read eloquent writings of Abraham Lincoln that assert that African Americans are a lesser race. Intelligent public figures had no qualms about expressing racist ideas back then. These days, one has to come to anonymous web board to find an intelligent and well-spoken person who's willing to express racist views.

Please explain what Islam has to do with race? Although I'm certainly "racist" insofar as I want third world non-caucasian immigration stopped now. Not for all your little stereotypical streetcorner analyses, but for reasons I've explained very well here and elsewhere.

[ScottSA]

Strangely enough many other people have had experience in the third world and are not a bigoted as yourself. This reminds me of a similar debate where another bigot's argument was that he knows immigrants better than anyone else, and that from his "experience", they are all bad.

First ScottSA hates Muslims, now he hates Mexicans, and we also know for sure that he hates homosexuals. So why can't ScottSA just come out and admit to being a bigot as many people have figured out with the exception of a few on the far right.

Depends on how a person views Jihad...

What would one expect to get in reply to this silly rant?

[Michael Hardner]

Scott,

And there's plenty of war in the Bhagadvagita, but let's stay on topic. We were talking about Christianity, no?

We were talking about attributing the causes of violence within a culture to that culture's holy books. If we suspect that this relationship is valid, and we're being rational, and not emotional, then we should see more violence in a culture with more violence in their holy books, no ?

Again we drift into logical neverneverland, I see. Are you unable to make the distinction between "Islam" and "Muslims?" It's really not hard.

Islam is a regressive death cult. As numerous well thought of scholars have shown, Islam is at its core simply deified thuggery. A "handful of western muslims" merely shows that not all Muslims are willing to go to jail for being good Muslims.

That's a distortion. One could argue the same thing about adherents of other holy books, who refrain from committing violent acts that are required of them.

"Deporting all Muslims" is an unachievable dream, albeit a lovely thought, but not because I think they're going to come at me with gnashing teeth - this generation at least - but because this is a Judeo-Christian society and I want to keep it that way.

And why do you want to keep it that way ? Simply because you like Christians and Judeos ?

As for the accusation that its inventions were products of other civilizations, please tell me what culture - aside from maybe Sumarians - arrived without any influence ? Christianity grew out of Judaism, and our number system is Arabic.

Yes, that's the standard reply, inevitably followed by reference to a numerology, or maps from one voyage, or some singular item that occured 100s of years ago. The very dearth of such episodes makes it rather quaint when you apologists trot them out. Btw, did you know "Arabic numerals are Hindu in origin?

Then we're agreed. North American culture draws upon a succession of cultures drawing all the way back to the Sumerians.

Please explain what Islam has to do with race? Although I'm certainly "racist" insofar as I want third world non-caucasian immigration stopped now. Not for all your little stereotypical streetcorner analyses, but for reasons I've explained very well here and elsewhere.

You haven't explained it very well, you have only said that you want to keep society Christian Judeo, but not why.

Would you allow a Muslim who repudiated their religion to stay in Canada, under your non-Christian-Judeo deportment plan ?

[Canadian Blue]

What would one expect to get in reply to this silly rant?

Pointing out the obvious, you have issues with people who don't share your attributes. So you hate Muslims, Mexicans, Homosexuals, etc. I don't really see how hoping that all the Muslims are exterminated from the west is any different from the notion some people have that if all the Jews were wiped out we would be better off as well. Hatred is hatred, no matter which group its directed at. I'm sure if the Muslims weren't around ScottSA would be spewing his hatred against another minority.

Edited October 2, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[GostHacked]

Mainland? You must be joking....the USA is more than the "mainland", and that includes embassies, bases, at-large citizens, and international interests. Are you including the Germans as "white dudes"? Don't forget to give Japan their "credit" too!

Dude , you do not even know what I mean by mainland USA??? I am not talking about US interests in another country. I am not talking about embassies in other countries. I am talking about the so called GOOD OL US OF A. Ahem.. if you need help on the map, it is in North America, in between Mexico (to the south) and Canada (to the north). Nice try though. Figure it out for yourself.

If I am wrong Bush_Cheney ... then show me the light. If not, you can exit stage right.

[GostHacked]

What are you on about? Do you see Muslims being rounded up and put in concentration camps? What crap. There is no comparison, especially given that the Jews in the 30s weren't blowing up buildings and subway trains.

I can see you trying it.

Gitmo is about as close as you will get to a concentration camp. Most of the occupants are Muslim. And holding them in Cuba means the US is too chicken to host them within their own borders. Who knows how many of those secret renditioning prisons there are on the planet operated by US entities.

[Canadian Blue]

We're not setting up concentration camps, we're simply creating the conditions to open them up in the future as long as we can convince everyone of the imminent danger that all Muslims pose.

Understood...

[trex]

interesting, if we were to replace the word muslim with the word "jew" in this thread, this forum would be completely shut down.

i am not pointing this out to say, jews get special protection but evidently that today, muslims do not. this is hate literature.

Edited October 2, 2007 by tbud

[kuzadd]

i am not pointing this out to say, jews get special protection

but evidently that today, muslims do not. this is hate literature.

exactly, and yet it is allowed, repeatedly here, and scottsa is the worst prevaricator of that absolute garbage, along with some others.

it is absolutely atrocious.

This is approporiate?

Islam is at its core simply deified thuggery.

Is it?

"Deporting all Muslims" is an unachievable dream, albeit a lovely thought, but not because I think they're going to come at me with gnashing teeth - this generation at least - but because this is a Judeo-Christian society and I want to keep it that way.

wow! and I mean wow!

If this was said about any other group of people,and I mean any other distinctive group of people, we would recognize this exactly for what it is.

and yet, Maple Leaf forums allows it??

hey scottsa or maybe argus:

would you agree with this statement, does it summarize your opinion?

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against Islam, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

how about this one scottsa, or argus, does this summarize your feelings?

“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of our country, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

do tell?

Edited October 3, 2007 by kuzadd