Give me the shotgun and you spot 'em then. Let me know if one is still moving after and I'll shoot 'em all. Rat's a rat, red, white, black or blue, if it's got a tail and moving after dark shoot it. Let the buzzards sort 'em out in the morning.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The massacre at Fort Hood and Muslim soldiers with attitude
- Thread starter BloodEclipse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Give me the shotgun and you spot 'em then. Let me know if one is still moving after and I'll shoot 'em all. Rat's a rat, red, white, black or blue, if it's got a tail and moving after dark shoot it. Let the buzzards sort 'em out in the morning.
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
So, genocide, right? You want to kill every single Muslim, right? Men, women, and children..can't let any of the rats reproduce, right? If I am following you correctly, this is how I am reading your comparison.
No, he wrote "muslim nutbags". If he meant "nutjobs" he'd have written "nutjobs". But you already knew that.
Since he wrote "muslim nutbags" we can safely assume he is concerned only with "muslim nutbags" rather than nutbags generally, or "nutjobs of any stripe" if you prefer. Singling out muslims among the nutjobs in indeed an unamerican activity. Bone up on your constitutional law.
Last edited:
Well I never heard of an Amish strappin 5 pounds of C4 to his azz and blowin up the fruit stand...
I suppose that depends on who you ask. Just because anti-Amish bigotry isn't presently fashionable, but anti-Muslim is, doesn't make it any less acceptable.
Neither does your being afraid of Muslims ahead of Amish.
Good job sidestepping the point, by the way, of subverting the freedom of religion documented by the contitution, to assuage your cowering. He wrote "muslim nutbags", can I assume you and he approve of all of the other nutbags joining the ranks?
Jay
Gotta watch us old guys.....cause if you don't....
Does anyone realize the freedoms required to even participate in this thread......
...the freedom to read this thread
...the freedom to post in it
...the freedom to have your own opinion
...the freedom to disagree
...the freedom to carry any semblance of logic to an extreme
...the freedom to try and put words in the mouths of others
...the freedom to allow others to think some of you a fool, and continue to bolster that opinion
.... and.... the freedom to think that each time you click on "post", that you may actually have the last word..........
and yep, I posted too..... but I don't really care if anyone else agrees with me or not...... the first four freedoms were enough for me.
I'm too old for the last four.
...the freedom to read this thread
...the freedom to post in it
...the freedom to have your own opinion
...the freedom to disagree
...the freedom to carry any semblance of logic to an extreme
...the freedom to try and put words in the mouths of others
...the freedom to allow others to think some of you a fool, and continue to bolster that opinion
.... and.... the freedom to think that each time you click on "post", that you may actually have the last word..........
and yep, I posted too..... but I don't really care if anyone else agrees with me or not...... the first four freedoms were enough for me.
I'm too old for the last four.
Last edited:
evansvillethompsongunner
Shooter
- Oct 29, 2009
- 2,434
- 36
Largely unasked-for polemic regarding the violent nature of Islam...
Christianity has had in its existence, just as violent a history as Islam has - but unlike Islam, Christianity had its reformation in the 1300s-1400s, and ever since, has become less violent, dramatically so, to the point in which the violence espoused in the Bible (and yes, it is there if you look for it) is glossed over by moderate Christians and most Evangelicals alike - very few Christians hold a worldview which is conductive to violence now, pure and simple... Sure, you do have Christians who commit violence (Timothy McVeigh's views on religion are conflicting and largely unknown, but he was at least raised Irish-Catholic; you have people who kill abortionists wholly convinced they're doing the work of their 'god,'), but you do NOT see the type of violence which is ENDEMIC AND CENTRAL to the belief system of Islam - because unlike Christianity, Islam has NOT undergone moderation or reformation, and it too is now 1300-1400 years old (the same age as Christianity when it downgraded itself into a more peaceful epistemology), and thus the Muslim world stands on a cusp: either Islam will moderate itself into a position in which violence shall be almost universally renounced and denunciated, as have Judaism and Christianity done in their developments, or it shall, I am afraid, degenerate into even further violence.
However, Islam is even more unlikely than those religions to do the former and far more likely to do the latter, and I'll tell you why - Muslims believe that their 'holy' book, one which I do not name on principle, is the INERRANT word of 'god,' 'allah' simply being arabic for the word 'god.' Christianity developed lots of sects throughout its development, and whatever part of the original dogma that sect disagreed with, it largely disavowed or ignored or re-interpreted. Non-literalism arose, and with the splintering of dogma came different, occasionally conflicting versions of their 'holy' book, the Holy Bible... at present, there is: The King James version, New International Version, Red Letter Version, etc, etc, etc...many slightly different texts.... there are the gnostic gospels, the apocrypha, etc, etc, etc.... there are minor differences between each sect of Christianity, most notably between the Catholic/Protestant split, but even amongst Catholics, there are Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Non-Orthodox, etc, etc, etc. With Protestants, one has Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists (not too many Quakers anymore, though), United Methodists, etc, etc, etc.
With Islam, their book is unlikely to undergo any revisions at all, as it is already 'perfect' and thus unneeding of any human change anyone would make to it. Only interpretations differ, and where Christians largely ignore the violence espoused in the Bible, Muslims are FAR more likely to embrace it, as moderation has not really struck the Muslim world as it has with our nation, who are mostly Christian.
I'm not about to make excuses for their inexcusable violence, but understanding why they're so violent might be able to help us understand this one fact which everyone seems so hesitant to admit, and while I respect what Bill of Rights has said on this, and about being careful to avoid jumping to generalized conclusions, (Bill, you seem like a fair, nice, intelligent, well-reasoned, polite, thoughtful, and reasonable guy, but just I cannot agree with your stance on this one issue), Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, and it is perfectly valid to criticize one based on one's beliefs.
This is not a matter of unfair characterization based on skintone or gender or nationality - this is characterization based on one's propensity to commit violence - and more specifically, unprovoked violence against largely-civilian populations. It's one thing to join a fighting force and to strap on body armor, grab an M4A1, and to follow one's platoon into battle, knowing that you signed up to defend your country, which then owes you everything they have for your selfless sacrifice - it's quite another to strap on some TNT or RDX to one's chest and to then stroll into a crowd of civilians going about their day and to forever destroy their lives - and this is a problem solely specific to Islam - else where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? To paraphrase the stance issued by the anti-religionist (and particularly anti-Islamic) Sam Harris, where are they?
"If economic, political, social, or religious persecution alone or in tandem are enough to take otherwise normal, non-violent people and to turn them into mass murderers, then where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered under the Chinese regime oppression that is every bit as brutal as American policy has EVER been in the Middle East, but you don't see it. Despite torture on a semi-regular basis, massacres, and generalized oppression, we still don't see that happening - and we are profoundly unlike to see it. Buddhists don't believe the sorts of things you have to believe to form a death cult that is brewing in the Muslim world."
They don't allow violence to constitute a part of their worldview, as it's not part of their religious beliefs - beliefs which lay bare our expected behavior and beliefs of how this world functions and our role in this world... and thus violence doesn't enter much into the mindset of a Buddhist, much less actually translate into behavior... the most violent Buddhist in the world in the most violent act ever committed due to their religious beliefs simply set himself aflame... Thich Quang Duc didn't have the hubris or religious beliefs which could justify doing harm to others, only himself... especially not beliefs which justify mass murder, unlike the rewards which Islam promises to the most devout (read: most willing to kill) awaiting them in the afterlife.
To keep shrugging this problem off as due to a few bad apples or extremists is to miss the point - Islam even at its mildest is still violently extreme, and Islam at its most violent.... well, we have all seen the enraging and unjust, and tragic results of that.
Hopefully as a nation, we will soon understand that fact, for all of our collective sake, and for our posterity. When our children grow up, hopefully we shall have had the courage to label this world honestly enough that they understand what they're getting themselves into... and continued notions that the unprovoked usage of violence against civilians is completely acceptable is just a minority view in the Muslim world are not only disingenuously untrue - but in a world of seemingly increasing violent religious behavior - also very dangerous. Muslims must renounce their religion, or by the free peoples of America, they shall be destroyed by it.
Christianity has had in its existence, just as violent a history as Islam has - but unlike Islam, Christianity had its reformation in the 1300s-1400s, and ever since, has become less violent, dramatically so, to the point in which the violence espoused in the Bible (and yes, it is there if you look for it) is glossed over by moderate Christians and most Evangelicals alike - very few Christians hold a worldview which is conductive to violence now, pure and simple... Sure, you do have Christians who commit violence (Timothy McVeigh's views on religion are conflicting and largely unknown, but he was at least raised Irish-Catholic; you have people who kill abortionists wholly convinced they're doing the work of their 'god,'), but you do NOT see the type of violence which is ENDEMIC AND CENTRAL to the belief system of Islam - because unlike Christianity, Islam has NOT undergone moderation or reformation, and it too is now 1300-1400 years old (the same age as Christianity when it downgraded itself into a more peaceful epistemology), and thus the Muslim world stands on a cusp: either Islam will moderate itself into a position in which violence shall be almost universally renounced and denunciated, as have Judaism and Christianity done in their developments, or it shall, I am afraid, degenerate into even further violence.
However, Islam is even more unlikely than those religions to do the former and far more likely to do the latter, and I'll tell you why - Muslims believe that their 'holy' book, one which I do not name on principle, is the INERRANT word of 'god,' 'allah' simply being arabic for the word 'god.' Christianity developed lots of sects throughout its development, and whatever part of the original dogma that sect disagreed with, it largely disavowed or ignored or re-interpreted. Non-literalism arose, and with the splintering of dogma came different, occasionally conflicting versions of their 'holy' book, the Holy Bible... at present, there is: The King James version, New International Version, Red Letter Version, etc, etc, etc...many slightly different texts.... there are the gnostic gospels, the apocrypha, etc, etc, etc.... there are minor differences between each sect of Christianity, most notably between the Catholic/Protestant split, but even amongst Catholics, there are Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Non-Orthodox, etc, etc, etc. With Protestants, one has Lutherans, Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists (not too many Quakers anymore, though), United Methodists, etc, etc, etc.
With Islam, their book is unlikely to undergo any revisions at all, as it is already 'perfect' and thus unneeding of any human change anyone would make to it. Only interpretations differ, and where Christians largely ignore the violence espoused in the Bible, Muslims are FAR more likely to embrace it, as moderation has not really struck the Muslim world as it has with our nation, who are mostly Christian.
I'm not about to make excuses for their inexcusable violence, but understanding why they're so violent might be able to help us understand this one fact which everyone seems so hesitant to admit, and while I respect what Bill of Rights has said on this, and about being careful to avoid jumping to generalized conclusions, (Bill, you seem like a fair, nice, intelligent, well-reasoned, polite, thoughtful, and reasonable guy, but just I cannot agree with your stance on this one issue), Islam is NOT a peaceful religion, and it is perfectly valid to criticize one based on one's beliefs.
This is not a matter of unfair characterization based on skintone or gender or nationality - this is characterization based on one's propensity to commit violence - and more specifically, unprovoked violence against largely-civilian populations. It's one thing to join a fighting force and to strap on body armor, grab an M4A1, and to follow one's platoon into battle, knowing that you signed up to defend your country, which then owes you everything they have for your selfless sacrifice - it's quite another to strap on some TNT or RDX to one's chest and to then stroll into a crowd of civilians going about their day and to forever destroy their lives - and this is a problem solely specific to Islam - else where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? To paraphrase the stance issued by the anti-religionist (and particularly anti-Islamic) Sam Harris, where are they?
"If economic, political, social, or religious persecution alone or in tandem are enough to take otherwise normal, non-violent people and to turn them into mass murderers, then where are the Tibetan-Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered under the Chinese regime oppression that is every bit as brutal as American policy has EVER been in the Middle East, but you don't see it. Despite torture on a semi-regular basis, massacres, and generalized oppression, we still don't see that happening - and we are profoundly unlike to see it. Buddhists don't believe the sorts of things you have to believe to form a death cult that is brewing in the Muslim world."
They don't allow violence to constitute a part of their worldview, as it's not part of their religious beliefs - beliefs which lay bare our expected behavior and beliefs of how this world functions and our role in this world... and thus violence doesn't enter much into the mindset of a Buddhist, much less actually translate into behavior... the most violent Buddhist in the world in the most violent act ever committed due to their religious beliefs simply set himself aflame... Thich Quang Duc didn't have the hubris or religious beliefs which could justify doing harm to others, only himself... especially not beliefs which justify mass murder, unlike the rewards which Islam promises to the most devout (read: most willing to kill) awaiting them in the afterlife.
To keep shrugging this problem off as due to a few bad apples or extremists is to miss the point - Islam even at its mildest is still violently extreme, and Islam at its most violent.... well, we have all seen the enraging and unjust, and tragic results of that.
Hopefully as a nation, we will soon understand that fact, for all of our collective sake, and for our posterity. When our children grow up, hopefully we shall have had the courage to label this world honestly enough that they understand what they're getting themselves into... and continued notions that the unprovoked usage of violence against civilians is completely acceptable is just a minority view in the Muslim world are not only disingenuously untrue - but in a world of seemingly increasing violent religious behavior - also very dangerous. Muslims must renounce their religion, or by the free peoples of America, they shall be destroyed by it.
Last edited:
I missed the Amish massacres of innocents, the Amish suicide bombers, the Amish bus bombers, the Amish rocket launchers into civilian homes, the Amish flying planes into buildings, the Amish nightclub firebombers, the Amish beheaders, the Amish "honor killings." etc, ad nauseum...
You seem unwilling or unable to distinguish between the actions of a few radical muslims and the entire balance of the rest of the religion. You also seem unable to face the discussion directly, preferring to speak in generalities about things your television has told you are true, and to whine to me via reputation comments.
Why am I not suprised.
It's not a few, it's hundreds of millions worldwide that espouse violence. I didn't whine to you, I upbraided you for making 3 vitriolic personal attacks on members in your first 7 posts here. Why am I not surprised you can't tell the difference.
level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
Does anyone realize the freedoms required to even participate in this thread......
...the freedom to read this thread
...the freedom to post in it
...the freedom to have your own opinion
...the freedom to disagree
...the freedom to carry any semblance of logic to an extreme
...the freedom to try and put words in the mouths of others
...the freedom to allow others to think some of you a fool, and continue to bolster that opinion
.... and.... the freedom to think that each time you click on "post", that you may actually have the last word..........
and yep, I posted too..... but I don't really care if anyone else agrees with me or not...... the first four freedoms were enough for me.
I'm too old for the last four.
Good post. Sometimes the rhetoric and bickering gets silly.
Cheers!
SavageEagle
Grandmaster
- Apr 27, 2008
- 19,568
- 38
Look, I think we all agree that any nutjob has no place in our military. The reason Muslim nutjobs were singled out is because this thread is about a Muslim nutjob that just killed many innocent American Soldiers. On an American base. I'm not sorry if this offends you because you seem to want to defend this nutjob.
Why are you goading a fight about this? What are your real motives here? Do you have an issue with us pointing out radical muslims when we see them? Do you have a problem with us cursing radical muslims because they are killing our brothers and sisters and friends and family and fellow Countrymen? Do you have the same feelings as this POS nutjob that just killed 13 American Soldiers in an act of Jihad?!?!
What's your malfunction?!?!
We must now bow down to the master...
Ya know funny that.. I have always had a problem with authority figures...
Site Supporter
Members online
- philo
- bobzilla
- billmyn
- Creedmoor
- dmeadlo
- Ingomike
- El Conquistador
- Wolfhound
- Doug
- Vimace
- Dog1
- Demoderb1989
- STFU
- 45sRfun
- chuckp
- G19G26
- Lmo1131
- loudgroove
- HCRMPD1
- Jlasiter
- VinceU1
- JohnnyP
- Ziggidy
- Meena
- DoggyDaddy
- rb288
- PTSC
- bowhunter_1978
- Highstandard28
- historian
- DeadeyeChrista'sdad
- jsharmon7
- DaveO
- bacon#1
- tca1352
- llh1956
- 7920drew
- bwframe
- MattSchnepp
- Mark-DuCo
- thedreamer
- Alamo
- Itchytriggerfinger
- edwea
- morve80
- newbie
- BE Mike
- Luke.Schlatter
- deo62
- oDbCo