Islam is not a cancer but the people who view it negatively are the cancer and a real threat.
Why? So the people who publish this website, www.thereligionofpeace.com, ARE THE REAL THREAT? Are you fucking kidding me? |
|
|
|
One more proof that they should be deported. Nothing is normal here. They act like savages and nobody does nothing to stop this. Should go in jail for at lest 10 years..like example so they know what ll happen to them. They feel protected there and that nobody can say them nothing and they see police not doint anything.
And deported to where my dear sir? Where they come from? And how will you make them stay? They already put their life on the line so you can't make them stay away. Why would they do? We're responsible for their despair in a great part, time to take those responsibilities. Lol, that's very easy. You deport them to the country they CLAIM to be from. Syria, isn't it? (of course it's not really Syria...tough...) |
|
|
|
It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way
What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know. Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people. The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons. By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens. So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war. You can play semantic games all day if you like, but lets not forget about the millions of people dead in Russia, China, and Germany before and during the first world wars. Most of those people were killed by their own government/people/citizens/othermeaninglessdistinctionhere. The fact is dozens of millions of people died, and it wouldn't have been so easy if the general population was armed. This is a fact regardless of your nitpicking. I don't even see the point of the nit picking. We know a few with rifles can control thousands, so forth and so on. We know the presence of firearms in the population affects police behavior, largely for the better. We know it's a good thing for the government to fear the people. Not too much, but at least a bit. |
|
|
|
The only result of this would be Government looking the other way when their preferred people were hiring illegals. For example, using and gaming the system for political purposes. But there is a more basic reason it won't work.
What you propose is to legislate "black markets" out of existence. In the entire history of man, that has never worked. It has not even worked when the penalty was beheading for those caught.
I am only talking about illegals not black markets. They will always exist. For one reason. They are black. lol. They have imposed fines on people but it doesnt seem to work as most people who hire illegals could care less. Just give a reason to care a little more and they would stop what they are doing. Why wouldn't it work? Its a simple process. The way the laws are today there are loads of law enforcement agencies that would jump on this shit. They have no issue jumping on other low rated topics. This would give them something else to do. It wouldn't stop any black market besides importing illegals for work. If anything it may turn them into slaves. And now I do not want to hear anything about slavery. As even Jesus had slaves. not that I am religious. Just think its funny how so many Christians think slavery is bad but yet the one they look to and prey to and talk to had slaves. The whole point is. Not to make it harder for people to employ illegals but to make it so people do not want to. Give them reason not to. Make sense. Sure, you could do something like this by eliminated cash, then tracking every penny spent by every citizen and business. You'd need to issue to all "Legals" a government cash card for their electronic transactions, and you'd need to outlaw bitcoin, and jail people who used any foreign currencies. All this would create problems because all of the Congressmen and Senators have workers like Phillipino Maids, who are paid in cash. So they'd never allow it. |
|
|
|
why are some people committing such brutal crimes because of the religious things.. crime is crime ... i am so sorry for these victims..
west bank jewish settlements are illegally built on land stolen from arabs, its nothing to do with religion With these kinds of attitudes there will never, ever be technology, manufacturing or an industrial base. Such things require a basic stable economy. |
|
|
|
I am living far away from the United States. So personally, I am not planning to do anything. That said, Donald Trump as the POTUS will be much preferable than Hillary as the POTUS for me. The former is against invading third world nations, while the latter has already promised to the Israelis and the Saudis that she is going to invade Iran once she is elected in to power.
Not arguing that she is not a warhawk but where have you read anything that shows she is willing to do this? Few things that do not make sense to me and this aspect you mention would put a few of those issues to rest for me. One being that they are allowing Iran to flood the market with oil at a time that oil is already low. This puzzled me but if they are looking for a reason to attack Iran it would be like taking the muzzle off and hoping they bite. Also weakens Russia farther and that would most likely be Irans main buddy in a fight. I know you go deeper than me on these issues and just curious if you have a link to confirm the promise. Hillary is in really tight with the Saudis, of course they are the ones that would like Iran weakened. |
|
|
|
don't waste time to try making something from them, you won't success. They will hate you more and tyr to destroy you..they didn't come to learn new things and accept new modern prosperous life they came only to bring their habits and slave all free people
This liberal charade of "We will educate them to our advanced Western Ways" sounds very much like "We will Nation Build in the Middle East." Hello George Bush. No wait, he's gone, it's Merry Merkel..... |
|
|
|
Nuke the Middle East. And at this stage of the game, we're going to have to nuke Europe as well. By the way. Don't nuke out of hatred. Nuke them emotionlessly, coldly and calculatingly.  I'd prefer to wait for Skynet, thanks. |
|
|
|
Please post here the correct translation If my post was wrong.
I am not capable of saying what is a "correct" translation. I do not read that language. Just noting there is controversy over that group of statements. |
|
|
|
Guess people among all nations especially those who are being terrorized by ISIS ought not to merit them the hate they are soliciting.
This is practically their primary goal. To spread fear and terror among everyone. That is so it would be much easier for them to penetrate deeper into the system and get what they want.
So there is no difference between terrorists in middle eastern countries hiding behind women, children, schools, mosques and such; and terrorists hiding behind refugees in Europe? |
|
|
|
I personally think looking at the upper stratosphere temperature is more logical, since radiative balance as the net sum of in flows and outflows occurs...at the upper stratosphere. So if you would like to argue for the use of another temperature measure, then you will have some trouble substantiating "the more CO2 we have the more energy is being absorbed."
I'm not sure if I understand you. You think CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation? Good question. Sorry I was not clear. CO2 absorbs certain specific spectra due to it's dipole movements and vibrations, etc. That is one of a great many things that absorb, emit and so forth. The net of all of these is outgoing radiation from the planet. The essential question of "global warming" is whether net outgoing is decreasing relative to net incoming energy, by how much, and whether man is affecting that balance. Satellite temperature measurements of the upper atmosphere obviously closely measure these issues. Ground based temperatures measure such things loosely, if at all... This is why I mentioned that if one wishes to consider/argue the effect of man on "global warming," he MUST use satellite measurements. It then happens that satellite measurements show no warming in 20 years (maybe it's still 19, I don't recall). This indicates that net radiative planetary energy balance is unchanged for 19-20 years. And what does THAT imply? For one thing it defeats the "central CO2 hypothesis," which teaches that the climate has a high sensitivity to CO2. Increase CO2, and temperatures increase. It's wrong to look for simple explanations, though. But here is something I don't understand. The graphs show an increase. I mean they DO! Unless we don't have the same definition of increase of course but... Well as an engineer with a good formation in statistics I feel like I do ^^ Alrighty. Then you yourself can step through applying the formulas to the raw satellite data and proving for yourself that there is no significant trend. But do me one favor - after you've proved that, get mad. Get mad at people that fed you propaganda and lies. Not me - I'm just a guy that pointed out that bit of math. I can't change it, it is what it is. And it isn't this - this is a con game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw |
|
|
|
You have three errors in your lecturing. We take them one by one. No, the surface temperature is not primarily due to the temperatures at the Earth's core. Study the "radiation budget", here is a link. This is very well established science. Here is the answer from a prime "warmer resource," http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.htmlCommon sense might suggest that all that heat must have a big effect on climate. But the science says no: the amount of heat energy coming out of the Earth is actually very small and the rate of flow of that heat is very steady over long time periods. The effect on the climate is in fact too small to be worth considering.Here is a brief discussion of the energy budget. http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.htmlNext, interglacials caused by ocean currents? No, they are not. It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit. The interglacials and glacials coincide with cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit. Three orbital variations contribute to interglacials. The first is a change in the Earth's orbit around the sun, or eccentricity. The second is a shift in the tilt of the Earth's axis, the obliquity. The third is precession, or wobbling motion of Earth's axis.[1] Warm summers in the northern hemisphere occur when that hemisphere is tilted toward the sun and the Earth is nearest the sun in its elliptical orbit. Cool summers occur when the Earth is farthest from the sun during that season. These effects are more pronounced when the eccentricity of the orbit is large. When the obliquity is large, seasonal changes are more extreme.[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterglacialFinally, you have a rather interesting statement. ... making it hotter will change salinity which will change ocean currents which will influence the beginning of the Ice Age. No scientific findings support the certainty in your statement (bolded.) They cannot, because this is outright speculation. Here is the statement corrected to a reasonable level. ... IF CO2 produced by man makes the Earth hotter this MIGHT CHANGE salinity which MIGHT AFFECT ocean currents which MIGHT influence the beginning of the Ice Age. That's obvious speculation, why not just state it as such? Obviously it isn't factual or supported by scientific findings. It's totally reasonable to discuss as speculation, but it's unacceptable to consider or promote as fact. At least you're trying to discuss. 1/ This point was to make you understand that the most important is not the total heat but how it's distributed. Earth core heat is reponsible for the most part of energy dissipated on our ground BUT has low impact on climate because it's very equally distributed. It just provides a "base temperature" everywhere of something like 200°. 2/"Next, interglacials caused by ocean currents? No, they are not. It is well established that they are the product of periodic variation in the Earth's orbit." That would be true if we were sure that only that cause Ice Age. But we're absolutely not. Variations of Sun activity, Earth's orbit and salinity of oceans. All of them have an impact. Of course Earth's orbit is a FUCKING IMPORTANT one that's for sure. But not the only one to consider, and at similar Earth's orbit, you might have or not an ice age depending on other factors such as salinity. 3/ Ok fair point. You're perfectly right as it is speculation. But not based on nothing, it's based on simulation. Of course simulations are by themselves outrageous speculations as you try to create a model of reality, which will never be complex enough to be sure of yourself. 1. Um, no, Earth's core is not responsible for the major part of energy dissipated. Please help me out a bit here, just check the facts before posting. Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget2. A necessary condition is the orbital changes, and that is a necessary and sufficient condition. Changes in incoming radiation overpower things such as salinity. In fact, changes in salinity occur randomly and chaotically in a chaotic system, don't they? There is no argument here to be made regarding salinity as a driving force behind ice ages. In fact, it's not the salinity but the changes in ocean currents, isn't it? And those are not static and certainly will change with time. 3. Arguing simulation of a mathematically chaotic system? You really want to go down that road? Instead of focusing on an issue of the type IF A THEN IF B THEN IF C THEN IF D MAYBE.... Why not just stick to reasonable certainties? IF WE GET HIT BY A BIG ROCK FROM SPACE WE ARE FUCKED. Let's call the above an 4IF argument. Fair enough? Is this what you've got in support of AGW? LOL...any reasonable person would demand far better than that. Because we can prove almost anything using a 4IF dialectic. |
|
|
|
There were several cases of sexual treating of animals in arab countries, camel,sheep, goat..so this is not unnatural to them. And now you have problem in Europe because they think can do what they want and what is 'normal' according for them
From their book. "A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister." "It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven." "A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.""If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, an ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." "Each Muslim man, in exchange for a lifetime of mindless obedience, was to be rewarded after death with an unspecified number of pretty boys to bugger, plus eight heavenly houris, each more phallus-raising than the others and each endowed with the capacity to grow a new hymen after each bout of sexual recreation. The male chauvinist Muslim could thus satisfy his virginity fetish by deflowering them over and over again, for eternity. When one compares Mohammed's gardens of delight with the Christian heaven of harps and celibacy, it becomes apparent why significant numbers of Christian men turn Muslim while conversions the other way are almost non-existent." These are argued to be mis translations, at least in part, from a book by Khomeini. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234969511-beastiality-halal/Quite interesting that "selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." |
|
|
|
Just in case there is any doubt about Islam:  The bible say the same. If you find someone in your town that don't believe in your god you should burn down the town, death penalty for picking up sticks on the sabath and stuff like that. It's not just Islam. All religions are bad Yes the bible says similar things, one tenth as many. No, there is no moral equivalence argument that has merit. That is simply because of the INCIDENCE of violence. If this is because Christians don't obey their old book and Muslims do, it does not matter the reason. The incidence in current day is the measure. www.thereligionofpeace.com |
|
|
|
...
Merkel's WWII guilt caused all of this.
Maybe maybe not. Maybe she was subtly influenced, overtly bribed, blackmailed or otherwise influenced by Saudi or middle eastern influences. You know I think it might be WWII guilt because we saw similar policies of re-settlement of Jews and German Russians in exile. They were taking them left and right, no matter what. I personally know of many Russians who went to Germany on fake paperwork. No word of German, no German ancestry. They opened the gates to Jews similar to what they are doing now to Muslims. Problem now is that they will have to integrate them into mainstream society. And we all know how flexible Muslims and Christians are. The rate of this influx will be a problem. Well, at least in part, these questions can be tested. Political party XYZ let in a large number of (refugees, immigrants, blah blah blah). Did they let in groups which by way of their inclination, would vote for the party who let them in? That's the larger part of the answer. Strict self-interest, hiding of course under a robe of pure altruism. That's extremely cynical. And probably not far from the truth. I never thought about that. But that's true that if party XYZ let a massive way of immigration in, and let them the right to get the nationality and thus the right to vote, they more or less automatically win this massive way of migrants as new voters which are rather secured for their political party. Never thought about that. Maybe. I don't hope it, I'm not sure of it, but maybe it's a point for them :/ Well, I am in the USA and this is established playbook for the Democratic party. Nobody will dispute it. So here, this is not "extremely cynical." Depending on the cultural environment, sure, it could be seen that way in some other countries. But there's a long history of evil hiding behind altruism. What better place for a sociopath or psychopath to hide? |
|
|
|
I think the US needs gun control but that must also extend to more rigorous background checks,closing loop holes so that people with issues don't get access to weapons (such as convicted criminals,kids,teenagers,people with mental health issues or anger issues,stalkers,suicidal people,etc).I think the issue of gun control needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach for it to be successful.I live in the UK where people are banned from having guns which I think is good.No approach will eliminate murders completely but I believe it's important to try to address this issue however we can instead of just opposing measure that some people just don't like.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
Bah. http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/Ooooooh. The good old one "I don't have real counter argument so let me put out the one exception to the rule completly strange and exceptional enough to make the headlines and which is also 2 years old just to prove my point" ^^ ? Does it matter that it is 2 years old? Has anything changed? Have you considered that 3d printers really makes these arguments all moot? |
|
|
|
Between borders always were problems. One side claims border should be here because of year 1.. and the other side speak about maybe 1399...The best solution is to divide them and teritory with palestinian majority should be palestine..they can't live together and dividing them this terrible war will be finished and both parties will have their land.
That is the ideal solution. But there are two important factors which are impeding with this plan. 1. Israeli settlers living in West Bank. 2. Arabs with Israeli citizenship living inside Israel proper. The settlers don't want to relocate, and the Israeli Arabs don't want to renounce their citizenship (due to financial concerns). 3- The USA and Europe had and still have fucking big interest here, that's why we divided the countries like that so they fight together and don't try to take back what we're stealing from them. Really? But Pakistan was created at about the same time as Israel, and ten times as many people were relocated. Although nothing is perfect in Pakistan, there's not this big stupid fuss about the "relocated Palestinians." |
|
|
|
Light a large cigar and enjoy the show. It's going to be absolutely epic. If nothing else it'll send a rocket up the arse of a totally ossified political class.
I want to hear him say to a couple hundred thousand fat ass civil servants - "You're Fired." |
|
|
|
Well it's not the stupidest reason for rape I guess...?
But this is a headline (and post here on bct) that reeks of sensationalism. Doesn't matter if the rapist is an Iraqi immigrant or that it was a child. These things, while horrible, happen all the time. There's nothing special about this, though I definitely wouldn't say that to the parents here. It's just that the headline wants to imply more than is there, i.e., that the child rape is due to the person being Iraqi and an immigrant. No?
Sodomy, especially of young boys is something that is fairly common in Arab culture. It is not just sensationalism. If you do some actual research on the subject you will see what I say is true. There is certainly a pattern in the Arab world of raping young boys more so than the rest of the world in general. Part of the reason for this is they are so sexually repressed when it comes to women. They see women as being for reproduction and boys as being for fucking. This unfortunately is reality, not just sensationalism. Any Arabs in the house who want to tackle this one? Now I'm confused. So what are the goats for? |
|
|
|
Are you kidding? This IS what ISIS is doing in Syria to the Syrian people. Murdering, pillaging, raping, eradicating those who they think are infidels.
It's awful.
And your facts on the US are terrible incorrect. Yes, there was a lot of fighting and killing but there wasn't rape, there wasn't forced marriage, there wasn't mass murder. Please get your facts straight or lose the passive aggressive approach toward your distaste for the US.
Its not really my thought, I do not hate the US, but your telling me native Americans weren't murdered? conquered? from their own country? Edit and women weren't raped? http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/immigration/native_american2.htmlHere is some history for you oh and maybe you should do bit more digging, cause I had done my long fair share of getting educated. oh and the sad thing till this present day, they are still being raped.  Here is much great info how rape is a tool of war in time of history http://historiann.com/2008/04/07/rape-still-a-powerful-weapon-of-war/That's crazy talk. Obviously you don't know many (if any) native americans. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
