Do you really believe this is a Muslim ban?

[entruil]

Originally Posted by maskedmelonpai [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pragmatically, what is wrong with a Muslim ban? How does the US benefit from Muslim immigration? They generally hail from impoverished third world nations and produce the most savage zealots of all major world religions in the modern era. The US already has no idea how to address its own poverty/violence issues. Why import more?

Of course the vast majority of Muslims are normal human beings with absolutely no intention of sawing off heads, but Islam harbors savagery, enshrines it within its sacred text.

When presented with a significant threat from one thing relative to other things and no intrinsic benefit, how is it rational to admit that thing? We seek to quarantine every other virulence we encounter. Why not this virulence?

Has self aggrandizement so thoroughly perverted ordinary thought that we are incapable of recognizing reason?

Let us continue blindly in our pursuit of moral piety that those who follow us might once again know the misery of a state of nature!


PS

Yes, I know it not a nice thing to do, duh! That not the point.

I would like to say things about the Bill of Rights, but so much of it is discarded when it is inconvenient for the government. As things are I think you have the upper hand in that if we don't have a full-scale revert back to the basic ideas of Liberty it doesn't matter.

My understanding of Islam is that the savagery was added in by a king and not all muslims recognize his additions. The virulence IS the savagery. To set up a test of virulence based on religious texts may not be the best avenue to follow. Maybe, instead, set up a test of virulence based on savagery.

Do any religious texts not include savagery? is this part of your point? No intrinsic benefit sounds like it may be an opinion? Who gets to judge?

I tend to believe that most of the savagery is brought about by tyrannical governments all over the world who seek to impose their own will and destruction on their own and other people. Whether it's through domestic spying and speech regulation/propaganda or bombs and covert-ops and currency manipulation/central banking. should probably add Religion to that as well.

but yea...

[claypigeons]

Originally Posted by maerilith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can't wait till the Christian Right gets all sharia about contraceptives and marriage and gays again.

I hope not. That would be awful. I'd rather we moved on to real issues (not to downplay social issues. But as a society we get WAYYYY too hung up on what people look like, their genitals, and who they share their bed with). Like our perpetual interventionist politics, inflation, the failed drug war, etc.

[maskedmelonpai]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I would like to say things about the Bill of Rights, but so much of it is discarded when it is inconvenient for the government. As things are I think you have the upper hand in that if we don't have a full-scale revert back to the basic ideas of Liberty it doesn't matter.

I am suggesting we set aside sacred cows and consider what is most sensible, but I also do t think the bill of rights was intended to protect foreign interests. It was designed to protect the people of the US from their own government, not to protect foreign people's from prejudice of the US government.

My understanding of Islam is that the savagery was added in by a king and not all muslims recognize his additions. The virulence IS the savagery. To set up a test of virulence based on religious texts may not be the best avenue to follow. Maybe, instead, set up a test of virulence based on savagery.

Do any religious texts not include savagery? is this part of your point? No intrinsic benefit sounds like it may be an opinion? Who gets to judge?

I don't kno how the Qur'an was assembled, only what it says and what it says is terrible :c We can draw comparisons with Christians who have also spread their faith by the sword throughout history and in primitive parts of the world still do to some extent, but the fundamental difference between the two is that Christ was basically a hippy with a message of peace and forgiveness and civil disobedience. He said hey, you don't have to throw rocks at people and kill them for having sex. Muhammad was a conqueror and his message was one of violence spoken from both sides of his mouth. He said, hey, you need to partially burry these people in sand and throw rocks at them until they die for having sex.

The Qur'an is laced with prohibitions on nasty behavior, but is careful to follow every one of them with some sort of exit clause like, "but he who thinks he is right cannot be faulted for Allah is merciful." That sort of language is exceedingly dangerous because it opens the door to exploitation, which is the most basic problem with any ideology. Anytime you have a large group of people who have surremdered their intellectual sovereignty to pre-conceived notions of others, their vulnerable to manipulation because they are thoughtless louts. :c

As far as the value of Islam goes, yes that is my opinion and I am very open to changing it if someone can provide evidence to the contrary. What value does Islam specifically present the civilized world? :c

I tend to believe that most of the savagery is brought about by tyrannical governments all over the world who seek to impose their own will and destruction on their own and other people. Whether it's through domestic spying and speech regulation/propaganda or bombs and covert-ops and currency manipulation/central banking. should probably add Religion to that as well.

but yea...

If you read the Qur'an, you will see what I am talking about. I used to march around defending Islam against unfair attacks until I actually read what was written and was genuinely surprised. The whole thing is available in its entirety in English and Arabic and lots of other languages online. It is super accessible.

[Baler]

The ban doesn't go far enough.

They should be deporting people who are trying to feminize the usa and it's military.
Along with people trying to undermined the government posing as "activists".

I'm not saying that the government doesn't have it's problems. But the real problems are the people at your backdoor. Who's going to stop them if morons keep letting them populate and pollute the usa's morals and values as a nation.

And that boys and girls. Is just the tip of the iceberg. Trust me you don't want that fucker to flip because you'll be singing quite a different tune then.
The founding fathers had their shit together.

---
Edit:
To clarify a couple things so people don't trip. Femiziation of a countries military can mean a lot of things. Not just homosexuality contexts. In the most basic context it just means to make something weaker.
By populate I'm not speaking of a specific race of people. Rather I meant the spread of ideas. Basically to propagate so to further ones or a group's own agenda. Perhaps even another countries.

[Baler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wars_by_type

It is not as simple as you think.

PS. Nothing I said was sexist. I made that explicitly clear. Expand your vocabulary.
I did make a couple spelling mistakes though.

[Baler]

maerilith is a prime example of one type of war. He is trolling and defacing the p99 forums.

People like this are a calling card for others who think it's funny or are serious about acting in this fashion. I know you all have seen other posters who act in a similar way to this guy.

Does this person reflect the morals and values of the project 1999 community or is he populating and polluting the forums with, without a better word, Toxic posts.

If you let these people go unchecked before you know it all the good morals and values get tossed out the window and are replaced by these types of people.

[bigjerry]

US military officials said it? must be true they are very honourable men who have entrenched the literal rape of underage prisoners by united states military personnel into us intelligence doctrine

[maskedmelonpai]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

maerilith is a prime example of one type of war. He is trolling and defacing the p99 forums.

People like this are a calling card for others who think it's funny or are serious about acting in this fashion. I know you all have seen other posters who act in a similar way to this guy.

Does this person reflect the morals and values of the project 1999 community or is he populating and polluting the forums with, without a better word, Toxic posts.

If you let these people go unchecked before you know it all the good morals and values get tossed out the window and are replaced by these types of people.

I don't particularly see anything wrong with that post of Maerilith's tbh Baler. I not really sure what to think about your revised post, but had initially thought you were presenting a slippery slope argument, which is why I called it nonsense ^^

Without question though we need to defend Western ideals from foreign assault, but in general neither the religious right nor the regressive left are particularly shining examples of the values that have made the West what it is ^^

I agree with your point on the military and personally do not feel that women have a place on front lines. That's not equality, it's insanity. I tend to think that all causes are circular ones and at a certain point, going forward starts bringing you closer to the problems you already conquered as you depart the ideal. This is the problem of the regressive left. The right on the other hand is hamstringed by the refusal to move at all, recognizing that the current position, wherever it may be works fine for them and are unwilling to explore alternatives because they are risk averse among other things.

At the heart of it all is the refusal to think independently alongside the pursuit of purpose denied by modern society.

[maskedmelonpai]

Originally Posted by bigjerry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

US military officials said it? must be true they are very honourable men who have entrenched the literal rape of underage prisoners by united states military personnel into us intelligence doctrine

I was thinking about this and I think the rectal feeding is really something more insidious. Islam prohibits homosexuality, but interpretation/enforcement varies throughout the Islamic world with many condemning only the act of bottoming. So in addition to unnecessary humiliation, their trampling their religious beliefs in a very perverse way, which is pretty disgusting even if the religion is abhorrent.

[Rader]

so basically Muslim countries can do whatever the F they want in attacking us, but if we ever try to defend ourselves, we are racist xenophobic bigots...