Luther on Islamic Terrorism...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Luther on Islamic Terrorism...

    If anyone is interested in discovering that nothing really changes when it comes to Islam....check out this:

    Luther on War Against the Turk. Follow the links below.

    The footnotes that make sense of it unfortunately are not on the link but you will get the gist of it anyway.

  • #2
    There was a time when Islam, born of a warlord, was sweeping across the middle-east and Europe. The Crusades forced Islam out of Europe. Islam has always been a brutal and false religion. But, we should stay out of of the middle-east, especially if you don't want Muslim refugees flooding into western countries.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
      But, we should stay out of of the middle-east, especially if you don't want Muslim refugees flooding into western countries.
      There's absolutely no reason why we need take refugees during war. But the neighbors of war stricken areas could easily set up a safe zone - and a no fly zone over it while providing care, medical treatment, and schools. It is a small financial sacrifice for them to pay.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        I like the safe zone idea.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Germany is on track to take in 800,000 refugees this year, with a nominal commitment of 500,000 each following year, not to mention what other EU countries are taking. The children of these refugees will be many millions and free to travel to any EU country. It's only a matter of time before the Islamic state of Turkey joins the EU, which will dump over 70 million Muslims into the EU. What the Crusades accomplished is being undone. Europe will become Islamic in another generation, and we're doing our best to make it happen.

          We could pay moderate Muslim countries to take these people, but we won't.

          The opportunity cost of turning Europe Muslim is losing Christianity here in America. While we focus on fighting Islam, we open the door to persecution of Christian here at home because we're not fighting the enemy at home, SSM is an example of what we're inviting. We were fighting in Iraq for 8 years, losing men every day, spending billions of dollars every month, and the only way we ended that is by pulling out. The political capital needed to keep US troops there would have required the surrender of every domestic battle we fight. And, we'd still have nothing to show in Iraq, and nothing left here at home, except the expectation of being thrown to the lions by our pagan government.

          What do any of you think constitutes a win in the middle-east? There is no victory in the middle-east for us. All I seem to hear from the Right is "we shouldn't have left Iraq". That's the goal? Endless war? We're destroying ourselves fighting something where there is no victory. Do you guys have visions that the Religion of Peace will give us a big, warm hug if we can just put down ISIS? ISIS was created in the first place by what we're doing now.


          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
            Germany is on track to take in 800,000 refugees this year, with a nominal commitment of 500,000 each following year, not to mention what other EU countries are taking. The children of these refugees will be many millions and free to travel to any EU country. It's only a matter of time before the Islamic state of Turkey joins the EU, which will dump over 70 million Muslims into the EU. What the Crusades accomplished is being undone. Europe will become Islamic in another generation, and we're doing our best to make it happen.

            We could pay moderate Muslim countries to take these people, but we won't.

            The opportunity cost of turning Europe Muslim is losing Christianity here in America. While we focus on fighting Islam, we open the door to persecution of Christian here at home because we're not fighting the enemy at home, SSM is an example of what we're inviting. We were fighting in Iraq for 8 years, losing men every day, spending billions of dollars every month, and the only way we ended that is by pulling out. The political capital needed to keep US troops there would have required the surrender of every domestic battle we fight. And, we'd still have nothing to show in Iraq, and nothing left here at home, except the expectation of being thrown to the lions by our pagan government.

            What do any of you think constitutes a win in the middle-east? There is no victory in the middle-east for us. All I seem to hear from the Right is "we shouldn't have left Iraq". That's the goal? Endless war? We're destroying ourselves fighting something where there is no victory. Do you guys have visions that the Religion of Peace will give us a big, warm hug if we can just put down ISIS? ISIS was created in the first place by what we're doing now.
            Why would we pay moderate Muslims to take these people? Listen to What The Founders Thought About Islam, In Their Own Words

            Listen to George Bush on the Iraq war: We Must Destroy ISIS - U.S. Armed Forces vs ISIS

            This is the problem we have today. We have a Commander and Chief that was not qualified to lead our military to victory before being elected to office some seven years ago, and today is still not qualified to run our military. Why would we think that the Middle East is different than Japan or Germany? How could we allow another political war take place after Vietnam? We're dropping leaflets before bombing runs 30 minutes before our attacks? The moderate Muslims are shooting down Russian aircraft which pose no threat to them in the fight against Terrorism? Moderates preach the same ideology as the extremist - the difference is one talks about it and the other does.Read the article about what our forefathers said, how can we think to do business with a peoples that believe they are entitled to your livelihood? If we withdraw from the Middle East we essentially hand over the Middle Eastern trade routes. History repeats itself, Muslims will take control over the trade routes and pirate trade ships deemed ships of infidels.

            If liberalism is not working in the EU, why would we consider liberalism here? What do I consider a win in the Middle East, lemme suggest what a win is not. A win is not setting up and promoting liberalism. It is not setting up an form of Government that says continue in your same ideology that led to terrorism and war. We are not replacing the current ideology. A win is not taking over and controlling an area and then abandoning it, allowing the enemy to regroup, reorganize, and resupply in areas we once occupied - Bush warned we would have to go back and face a stronger enemy. ISIS was created by what "We" are doing now. Obama was warned, but despite his arrogance he has proven to be an Islamic sympathizer, and his foreign policy and objective in the Middle East only makes sense if we acknowledge that he is Islam leaning. Obama, in some ways is following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter, when Carter and his liberal administration essentially destabilized Iran and allowed Islam extremists its first sovereign country. I realize you say you would have no problem doing business with Islamic extremist, but at least consider what our forefathers said and prior Presidents.

            God bless,
            William
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by William View Post
              Listen to George Bush on the Iraq war: We Must Destroy ISIS - U.S. Armed Forces vs ISIS
              Bush says pulling out now (2007) would be dangerous for everyone. Pulling out any time would be dangerous, even if we stayed another 50 years. But, staying was no less dangerous. Remember Americans dying every day and billions of dollars being spent every month? Even if you think a Republican president would have handled things better than Obama, we don't get to have a Republican president in perpetuity, just like Europe won't stop taking in huge numbers of Muslim refugees. In fact, I'd even say Iraq is a big reason we don't have a Republican president. Which is fine, because if we had an endless-war Republican president, then the Democrats would own Congress, and Americans would still be dying every day in Iraq. The only times in modern history where Republican can gain a congressional majority is when a Democrat is president. We can only fight so many battles, and I'd prefer not to pick useless battles in the middle-east, while leaving American and Europe to go down the toilet.

              We're engaged in a political war now. We're helping ISIS in Syria because we don't like Assad. We're engaged in a political war now, because we have no win condition. The only concrete position I see of the US right now is to overthrow Assad. Then can we bring US troops back home? Or, will it be on to overthrowing another moderate Arab leader while Republican leaders demanding endless and costly occupation of another Muslim country -- and gloating "I told you so" when we pull out troops years later and radical Muslims make a play for power?

              The only sane way to deal with the middle-east is to pull out all US troops. Strongmen, like Saddam Hussein, will eventually control the governments and be our best pals, just like Saddam Hussein was before we betrayed him.








              Comment>

              • #8
                My two cents- trying to fix the problems of the middle east is like trying to put out a fire in a munitions factory with sticks of dynamite. We in the West should leave them to their own devices, at their own peril. We should merely defend our shores and way of life and send only missionaries to them and nothing more. No military involvement, no funding of any side over the other- just let 'em fight each other and smack them down if they come our way with their soul destroying heresy and their warfare obsession.

                Comment>

                • #9
                  The problem with this is that the munitions factory with sticks of dynamite equates to long range intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles that can reach any part in the world in under twenty minutes. We can only look away so much, we can only appease the enemy to the point where our inaction sets him at the table of world power.

                  God bless,
                  William
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Regarding nukes, Saddam Hussein disarmed of WMDs, and without a doubt ended his nuclear weapons program, and we invaded. Libya disarmed of WMDs and we fermented Gaddfi's overthrow. Iran has no nuclear weapons program and we'd attack Iran if our Evangelicals and their way. Meanwhile, we're allies with Israel even though Israel has nukes and refuses to abide by international laws regarding nukes, which puts Israel in club joined only by North Korean. We don't act like we're trying to stop middle-eastern countries from developing nukes. We ignored Pakistan going nuclear. We act like we want the whole middle-east to go nuclear. We punish only those countries that aren't working on nukes.
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                      Regarding nukes, Saddam Hussein disarmed of WMDs, and without a doubt ended his nuclear weapons program, and we invaded. Libya disarmed of WMDs and we fermented Gaddfi's overthrow. Iran has no nuclear weapons program and we'd attack Iran if our Evangelicals and their way. Meanwhile, we're allies with Israel even though Israel has nukes and refuses to abide by international laws regarding nukes, which puts Israel in club joined only by North Korean. We don't act like we're trying to stop middle-eastern countries from developing nukes. We ignored Pakistan going nuclear. We act like we want the whole middle-east to go nuclear. We punish only those countries that aren't working on nukes.
                      Are you comparing the actions of Republicans with the actions of Liberals and then generalizing "we" when referring to them that fight against Terrorism? Seems as though you're comparing President Reagan and Bush with Obama's non effective war. I agree with you to a point... . under the current leadership we should not be involved. We have gone from "not differentiating between Terrorist and those that harbor them" to calling people bigots that follow that policy. I don't agree with the isolationist ideology but under a liberal or liberal leaning Commander and Chief we are sacrificing good men for nothing, this Pres. is clearly not qualified to be Commander and Chief, we might as well sit back and let the Terrorist states have everything they want and let the liberal ideology or that one Republican liberal leaner that is an isolationist have their way - fight evil with tolerance and understanding - which is not the role of Government. Sit back in a Pacifist thumb sucking cowardly fetal position while our future is destroyed. Our current leaders are a bad joke, shrinking back and even phasing out patriots.... . liberalism will lead to a draft because anybody that actually believes in liberal ideology, I suspect.. . will not even fight for it.. . let alone work for it... . let alone make sense of it... . etc. etc. Listen to yourself at the moment Cornelius, you come across as someone that would in no way fight for the current path our nation is treading, am I right by suggesting that? Personally, there's no way I'd fight in a war when the President drops leaflets warning those in a hostile area of our coming.... .

                      God bless,
                      William
                      Comment>
                      Working...
                      X
                      Articles - News - SiteMap