It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Quran burning on again? Pastor says maybe

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by KILL_DOGG

You know what, since the Pastor caved. I decided to burn the Qur'an.

Get your burning Qur'an here.

Uh oh, watch out now, they will use this representation to justify killing thousands of people.

They are INSANE. Sorry, going to use my freedom to tell them to PO.

edit on 11-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:06 PM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Uh oh, watch out now, they will use this representation to justify killing thousands of people.

They are INSANE. Sorry, going to use my freedom to tell them to PO.

By your own admission, the only thing to gain is either nothing or innocent people getting killed. I am sorry if I do not understand the deep desire to do anything with those being the only possible outcomes.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by endlessknowledge

Yes, I agree with you. It is not a one way street. As I said in a different post on this topic, I am against barbarism of all kinds - and I include in this Islamic barbarism, Christian barbarism, Jewish barbarism, racial barbarism, political barbarism, sexual barbarism, etc, etc.

Perhaps more specifically, I am against fanaticism of any kind be it religious fanatacism or political fanaticism, etc because it always leads to suffering, hatred and too, too often senseless murder.
So, no, I am not pointing the finger at US exclusively, nor the West exclusively, nor politics exclusively. Since this topic was about the Pastor, my focus has been more on the nonsensical and dangerous way in which the MSM is covering this, and the way in which it is inflaming mob-type anti-Islam. Since I believe this is actually a deliberate strategy on the part of the criminals running the US to do just that, fuel hatred and inflame anti-Islamism, that's why my focus has been mainly on US.

I am acutely aware of the barbaric practices which go in in the name of Islam too. And of Judaism and Christianity.

I guess what I wish for is that the masses of ordinary people would stop responding to labels, and stop buying into the Governments' deliberate strategies of fuelling hatred and division amongst the people of the world.

My understanding is that there is a minority of fanatical Islamists who preach and incite hatred.
A minority of Christians who preach and incite hatred. A minority of Jews who preach and incite hatred, a minotiry of human beings who are politicians who incite hatred and conflict. We are many, they are comparatively few.

If we the majority of decent people of the world just stop responding to labels and incitement and just recognise each other as fellow good human beings, we can stop this terrible momentum from moving forward.

To be honest, I actually believe that ibehind the scene, many of these so-called enemies, are so many members of the same criminal gang duping the people into believing they are functioning independently.

Hence, together they play 'good guy' ,'bad guy' in the pantomime they present to us the public, while behind the scenes they are all working to the same goal, total control and subjugation of the world under the NWO.


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by Curiousisall

Sorry, don't care.
No one has the right to tell me to not do something that does not cause harm to another.

I do not care what political correctness guilt trip anyone attempts to use.

By the way, if anyone wants to copy the gif, go for it. I made it, you can spread it all you want.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Curiousisall

Sorry, don't care.
No one has the right to tell me to not do something that does not cause harm to another.

I do not care what political correctness guilt trip anyone attempts to use.

By the way, if anyone wants to copy the gif, go for it. I made it, you can spread it all you want.

I understand that you do not care. You have the right to poke yourself in the eye, sniff your own flatulence, and cut off your own arm. Do you have the same desire to those things because you have the right as well? I was not trying to lay a guilt trip. I am trying to understand why anyone would be driven to persist to getting to do something with no positive outcome for them at all and only the possible negative outcome for some other innocent person.

What if the innocent person killed turns out to be someone you know or care about? I am just curious why you feel the need to burn a book if that is the only thing that you might get out of it.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by KILL_DOGG

I think everyone here is forgetting a little thing called "Freedom of Speech." We have that in this nation even when we don't like or condone the "speech" others are guaranteed. If this man wants to burn books in protest, that's his constitutional right. The US Supreme Court even ruled that burning a US flag is protected freedom of speech.

It's important to know that it's not freedom of speech but freedom of expression. Fire does not talk, nor does anyone naturally emit fire from their mouths when talking.

The expression of destroying something with arson simply is meant to convey something in an unspoken way.

Yet the truth is, a person could say that with out the act of arson, so that physical act of destroying something through arson is really just expression.

So it is entirely possible to say the same thing, I hate the flag, I hate the Quran, I hate the Bible, I hate broccoli without burning it.

Conversely if you hate broccoli you aren’t likely to enjoy it more if you have burned it, I recommend steaming and serving it with a tasty high cholesterol high in saturated fat cheese sauce that masks the horror of eating something healthy for you!

People who want to claim it’s just a book are in fact lying to themselves, if it was just a book, they wouldn’t be committing an act of arson and destruction of it to express something. It wouldn’t actually express anything but being an arsonist and liking to burn things, if the book did not have specific meaning to the people burning it.

It would have no specific meaning either to the people who are defending the right to burn things as a form of expression.

The book like the flag is an icon and a symbol of something. That’s why burning it does convey something through expression without words so the ‘it’s just a book’ argument is totally silly and poorly thought out.

While it might be meant to convey one thing to people who support destroying that particular symbol it says something entirely different to the people who don’t want to see that symbol or icon destroyed.

Actions speak louder than words, which is why actions, are a form of expression. Yet we all know that actions don’t always represent the words that the people undertaking them use to describe the action. That the intent of the action is not always what they convey.

If you are involved in this argument at all, it’s because you don’t see it simply as a book. If you saw it only as a book, and a book alone you would be entirely indifferent to whether someone burned it and would not seek to defend that, and you would be entirely indifferent to how people reacted to that expression and act, and not seek to condemn that.

So anyone taking part in this argument or not, whether they can admit it or not, or want to admit it or not, knows it is not just a book.

In this particular case as it is being done, it has much more to do with freedom of religion, than it does freedom of expression. Specifically the freedom to destroy religious icons that belong to another religion that offend your religion, this though is bound to offend the religion that holds these icons and symbols sacred to their religion.

So now we have a potential catch 22 where one person’s religion is construed to command and justify the destruction of another person’s religion’s icons. While at the same time that person’s religion is construed to command them to prevent that or retaliate against anyone destroying their icons.

Now where the argument get’s absurd is most of it is based on judging the actions of non-American Muslims who do not live in America and are not bound by our Constitution or laws regarding religious freedoms.

American Muslims are not in fact gathering together to burn flags or Bibles or Torah in protest or retaliation. They are in fact celebrating their most important holiday right now Eid Mubarak, three days of feasting, gift giving, and thanksgiving and charity towards others.

Muslims in other nations not bound by are laws are protesting; using the very same tactics that many condemn when they employ them, yet defend when non-Muslim Americans do them, as a freedom of expression and religion.

So while some imagine that are own national and constitutional standards are superior, it is only in fact giving someone the right to do the same precise kinds of things, destroying icons and symbols with arson as an act of expression that the same Americans denounce when a non-American Muslim does something similar in another nation, with it’s own laws and customs.

The argument itself is one huge pissing contest, where everyone involved is more or less equally guilty of doing the same things, just with different symbols and icons, meaning to express different things.

Anyone partaking in the argument by the very virtue of partaking in the argument knows by extension it is clearly not just a book, but an important and sacred religious icon and symbol to 1/3rd of the world’s population.

People in other countries are actually questioning if 9-11 has turned into a day of hate, because they see the argument for what it essentially is, a rejection of and attack on a religion, which is exactly what the Nazis did with the Jews in World War II.

People around the world are in fact worried about that, and for very good reason. What a shame prideful and religiously oriented and biased Americans can’t see that too, as there is a real inherent danger in not seeing this argument for exactly what it is.

How tolerant are we going to be of religious persecution and bigotry?

Too tolerant in my humble opinion.

edit on 11/9/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by Curiousisall

You know what, it is called freedom.
I know many do not get that. It is funnier than hell that on one hand they have the freedom to build a mosque where they want and we are supposed to just shut the hell up. But ooohhh, if something they do not like gets done we have to worry about what THEY might do.

Not going to work.

Freedom of speech and expression was not to protect flowery speech or flowery expression. It was meant for things that YOU may not agree with. That OTHERS may not agree.

Do you get THAT?

I am sick of pussy footing around other's supposed right not to be offended. That way leads to the elimination of my rights. If people cannot understand that, then I could care less.

Do not like it, maybe get rid of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. TRY.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

That's an enourmous reply sir, but what I said is correct. The US Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning, or burning your high school history book or whatever you wish, is a protect right under the Constitution. We may not like the idea, but this man has a protected right to burn anything he wants to that he owns, even a flag. It may be "freedom of Expression", but it falls under protection by the US Constitution because just like a person's speech, it conveys they expressed opinions on any matter.

We may not like it, but the man has a right to burn qurans.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

That was quite flowery, bunch of nonsensical ramblings IMO.

Yeah, now we have some people stating that this is a SIN. Yeah right.

Can't we all just get along? Pffft.

I have always stood on the side of liberty and freedom. As long as you harm no one else. Sorry, we as a society are supposed to stand back and let our government trash every religion there is, EXCEPT islam? Right, yeah going to get behind that one.

Nope, the government has pushed many so far and not going to take it anymore. We have had to put up with the liberal progressive freaks burning the flag, burning the Constitution, the government FUNDING anti Christian supposed art, now they are going to preach to others not to do something that might offend a religion.

Yeah, that is going to go over well.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:53 PM
This story is a ploy to distract people's attentions away from the real culprits of 9/11 and give rise to the tension that exists between muslims and the western world. It just boggles the mind how the American media has decided to milk this despite the fact that Jones and his congregation of about 50 wouldn't have even been known had they not decided to report this little incident. I understand there is a ratings system that the media loves to depend on, however...there also seems to be something underlying that is being ignored.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I have always stood on the side of liberty and freedom. As long as you harm no one else. Sorry, we as a society are supposed to stand back and let our government trash every religion there is, EXCEPT islam? Right, yeah going to get behind that one.

What you are displaying is a basic truth, even though you haven't arrived at or at the very least, mentioned what that basic truth is.

That truth being the perception of damages having occurred. In law suits this is referred to as mental anguish, pain and suffering caused by a specific set of circumstances falling upon the victim through some other party’s negligence or willful harmful acts.

Yet because mental pain and anguish is a matter of perception and how a unique individual internalizes events and circumstances that do then upset them, depress them, anger them, it is mental anguish, pain and suffering.

For example if someone mentions my receding hairline, it's up to me how I want to internalize it. I can allow it to upset me, and blame the other person for mentioning it, I can imagine too, why the other person mentioned it as either being an insulting act, or simply an honest observation. In other words I have the right to upset myself over what is the truth, I have a receding hairline.

Now if I choose to allow myself to become upset, I really have no recourse except to disassociate myself from that individual who mentioned it if at all possible. Though that does not preclude other individuals in the future from observing and mentioning I have a receding hairline.

Now here is the funny thing, I am not bald, yet some people might exaggerate for mean spirited purposes and call me bald! So now we get down to degrees and shades, of how bald am I or how bald am I not. If people exaggerate my receding hairline for the purpose of trying to insult me or provoke a reaction it becomes far more obvious than someone saying, wow you are loosing your hair, have you thought of switching shampoos or trying a hair restoral product.

I still might complain about how unfair the world might seem to be, since I don't have much control over a receding hairline.

Much like someone born into a nation that is predominantly or exclusively Jewish, Christian or Muslim doesn't have much choice in becoming a member of those religions.

Now some people are more sensitive about their appearances than others, so telling them they are bald, or fat, or ugly might prompt a very angry response up to and including violence.

Violence of course can escalate and get out of control.

Some people are more sensitive about their religious beliefs and beliefs in general than others, and they might get upset about their religion being criticized up to and including violence.

If you know someone is overly sensitive about something, and you do something to provoke them, then you may have to deal with the consequences of your free speech, because the individual does have an inherent right to respond as they see fit, regardless of the laws, or conventional wisdom.

Our laws provide some recourse against people who respond poorly, but our laws are not applicable everywhere and to everyone throughout the world that burning a sacred symbol and icon of their religion is likely to upset.

So having an expectation of saying or doing something that is highly offensive to people around the world, only being reacted to in a manner prescribed by our own national laws, is rather foolish and not likely to occur as you wish or believe it should.

Since our laws don't apply there, nor do our customs, their laws and their customs apply there, and they might take exception to ours as much as we take exception to theirs.

So is it worth upsetting people wholesale through an expression designed purposefully to upset people wholesale?

It has in fact harmed our nations image abroad not just in the Islamic World but throughout Europe and Canada as well.

What you are displaying through your own sensitivities about your religion and your flag, is yes their is a reasonable expectation that defiling symbols and icons of someone else's religion is going to upset them.

Wars have been fought for less.

Responsibility comes along with free speech, and while yes the law of the land permits you freedom of speech and expression up to a degree, (try burning down a bank because you don't like the Federal Reserve) simply means the government itself will not punish you or retaliate for using free speech. As to those whom you offend, those laws do not serve as an absolute preventative measure from them retaliating for what they perceive as a offense, even though you might yourself not see it as an offense or one that warrants such a retaliation.

This is in part why mental anguish is so hard to prove in lawsuits.

While burning a Quran is not willful negligence on your part, it is a willful act on your part, so you are, and you are alone responsible for any reprisals doing that entails.

Your government is simply advising you their may be reprisals to that act, and rightly and wisely so.

Trying to justify doing that because of previous acts committed by others that you are sensitive too does not and will not negate your own act, or make it non-offensive in this occurrence.

Assuming that other's including government cautioning you about that is favoring one religion over another, is once again just your own perception and how you internalize wise advice.

Engaging in and condoning the same kind of behavior towards others that you find offensive when directed towards you, in fact makes you no different than those people, so you aren't proving any dissimilarity but a similarity.

Reacting emotionally is not the same thing as responding intellectually, and most people on both sides of this divide are being ruled by their emotions not their intellect.

Liberties are privileges granted by the government, people confuse them with rights which are inherent to your own humanity and nature.

No one can take away your inherent human and inalienable right to respond violently when insulted or provoked, and your government can't take it away from Americans any more than they can take it away from the rest of the world.

That's why the jails are full of people who have committed violent acts.

They can take your liberty, your privelage away to respond violently when provoked or insulted, but they can't take away your right to do it, they can only punish you if you exercise that right.

The constitution won't stop a speeding bullet, you though can stop yourself from doing something stupid for a purely emotional reason, that might provoke someone into shooting you.

Someone who likely would not, if you simply did not do that.

It's very simple.


edit on 11/9/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by endlessknowledge

My understanding is that there is a minority of fanatical Islamists who preach and incite hatred.

I'm not disagreeing that only the minority are fanatical. In fact, the majority of people in all religions don't really practice their religion and are generally uninformed about its preachings. This includes muslims. So yes the majority are peaceful as I have seen through friends and even family.

However, what sets islam apart from other religions is that the fundamental teachings in islam breads intolerance towards other religions or beliefs. You are not allowed to question islam, period. What does that mean for freedom of speach. You cannot deny that there are plenty more islamic fanatics than any other religions. They also go a lot further in their fanaticism than the rest( such as suicide bombings as a gateway to heven). This can't be all blamed on the US.

Bottom line is that islam is a bully who wants to silence all who criticize it. Look in to their teachings before comparing it to other religions. This politically correct attitude that fanaticism is not exclusive to islam(although partially true), makes this lack of tolerance seem a lot less significant of a problem than it really is.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:20 PM
Word on the street is that the English Defense league held a koran burning today. In Oldham, England. But there are reports that the Muslim Defense League turned up and it's all got a bit messy. (this is unfolding as I type this, only link I have would be to a political section on another forum, which you'd need to register on)

Well done Pastor Knuckle, or what ever your name is. You've started a little chain reaction in other braindeads. Let's all have a race war
:massive facepalm:

edit on 11/9/2010 by Acidtastic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Do you also agree, then, that people should be free to murder, rape and steal as and when they wish, without restraint?

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Wow, going to have to read that again but I want to get this thought out there.

What the pastor was going to do caused no problems. Even IF he did it, it would not have caused no problems.

The COVERAGE of it caused the problems.
The general comes out and blah blah blah blah.
The president comes out and blah blah blah blah.

Staged actions and reactions, all for the benefit of the government and their chess moves.

Pawn to queen's four. Gotta use that queen gambit. Chess is so much fun.

All them pawns to use.

The tyrants use things EXACTLY like this to install more control, more protections, more surveillance. MORE.

If the government would just step back and leave everyone alone, none of this crap would happen. Sorry, if this guy wanted to have a Bible, Koran, Tora, etc etc etc barbecue, it harms no one at all.

But the government has to use all these thing to install MORE control. To help us out proto. To help those poor muslims. Those poor catholics. Those poor protestants etc etc etc.

One thing that never got on the airwaves though.

Ol Glenn Beck had another get together today.

WOW, that never got any coverage though.

Right Hand Left Hand

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by wcitizen

Wow, you are just amazing.

That is all.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:28 PM
Just listening to Tarplay on the radio:
The reverend, when in Germany was rousted for claiming he had a doctorate and didn't, so he was fined, and run out of town.
He was also running a secondhand clothing chain under his wifes name, while under the tax exempt status of the church of which he was a reverend, or pastor of...using the TAX exempt status of the church...

So this isn't about Muslims, it isn't about free speech, it isn't about the mosque, its about conning the American people while claiming to be tax exempt.
Looks like he has been pretty successful at it so far.

Tarplay was also pointing out the bilderbugers were behind the Mohammad cartoons in Europe as a propaganda play for war with Iran...though it didn't fly that well over there... ( or there would have been a war right?)
...Webster is making fun of all the copycat entrepreneurs getting into the burning Koran biz...

Funny to watch the peeps fall for this stuff again and again though...
Well, back to burning bibles in Israel, guess the US isn't sending enough tribute lately...smarten up there. eh?
When are U guys gonna get around to straightening THEM out on that?

edit on 11-9-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Here is what you might not get through a fixation on Islam or your own religious or national sensibilities.

Thailand is not a Islamic Nation, but the surest way to offend any Thai is to insult their King. Their monarchy is sacred to them, even though the Monarch does not rule day to day government and plays no part in their religion which is Buhdism.

If you visit Thailand it will be mentioned to you by a State Department Advisory and Travel and Tour companies to make sure you are aware of this custom, because almost any Thai will react violently if you insult their King.

American law does not protect you from this custom, or exempt you from it, when in Rome do as the Romans do, is the general rule.

You might not know, understand or care, why every Thai even though it is a democracy will not tolerate any insult to their King, that doesn't matter, what matters is they won't.

Yes you still have the inherent human right to attempt it, but if you do it in Thailand nothing can protect you from the reprisals.

What a lot of people don't understand is that by purposefully doing something that 1/3 of the world is going to find highly insulting, because it is only being done to be highly insulting, places an incredible burden on the government to protect you from those reprisals.

The government can't be every where at all times in all places, and can't even fully protect you from unrelated criminal acts of violence in this nation.

Because the government can truly not protect you in every place and at all times, it is simply cautioning people to use some discretion when it comes to freedom of expression that might invite people around the globe using their own inherent natural right to respond violently.

The reality is unless you specifically want to provoke a violent and angry response there is just no legitimate reason to do something, anything that is going to promote a violent and angry response, especially one that is bound to at the very least severely annoy 1.6 billion people when ours is a significantly smaller nation in it's population in relation to those numbers.

Your government allows you acts of stupidity it can't protect you from them though.

Is Islam your enemy, or a propensity to do stupid things to annoy people who really aren't doing anything to annoy you.

If it bothers you when people take exception to how you practice your chosen religion, it's probably not a good idea to then take exception to how others practice theirs or simply that there are other religions, which the very notion of it not being your religion you then find offensive all by itself.

Lead by example.

Don't expect the rest of the world to attain a standard and maintain it when you can't yourself.


posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:54 PM
Oh yes, when in Rome do as the Romans do.
BUT when in America make Americans do as you do.
Americans have no principles and they will give up all so as not to offend you.
They have given up their principles to the God of Tolerance. (sometimes called Political Correctness)
So bring on your Sharia law.
We will gladly stone our women to death when you rape them.
We will put black sacks over our wives and beat them when dinner is late etc etc.

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by endlessknowledge

I have looked into it quite a lot, and what I have read is that there are different and opposing views on this even between Muslims, and even between Muslim scholars.

Some erudite Muslims claim that Islam is NOT a violent, oppressive religion. They cite passages from the Koran to substantiate their argument. I am not a Muslim scholar, and frankly I have no wish to be. I have no time for organised religion nor their 'holy scriptures' which have, since time immemorial, caused so much horror and bloodshed.

If I apply my own, non-Islamic basic common sense to what I read, I see in the Koran, paragraphs which incite hatred, violence and repression, especially towards infidels. But I see this also in other so-called holy books.

I agree that there seems to be a lot of Muslim fanatacism about, and I am aware that there is also a Hojatieh sect allegedly Islamic which seeks Armageddon, just as do those criminals behind the NWO agenda.

Now, if I go back in history, I see the exact same dynamic in early Christianity. The violence perpetuated in the name of God and the Church at that time was truly horrendous. Millions were killed because they weren't considered 'true' Christians by the psychopaths in Rome. Exactly the same thing.

Today I see the same thing happening with the Zionists. The Zionists are guilty of causing the deaths of literally millions and millions of people over the last few centuries. They are every bit as fanatical, violent and repressive as the most fanatical Islamists, but are just much less visible to the world because they own most of the world's media and present a false face to the public.

If you read Jewish scriptures also you will see exactly what they think of the 'Goyim', and how insignificant the deaths of Goyim are to them. You will see also how they treat Jews who they consider not to be following the true Jewish teachings....much the same, I imagine, as the way you were treated by fellow extremist Muslims.

If you care to look into what has gone on in the name of the Catholic church in Canada, right up until the 1960's, you will see that genocide and rape of indigenous children took place on a horrendous scale, within the auspices of Christian schools and children's homes, with the complicity of Canadian politicians. Their evil goes on undergound, but it isn't any less evil for that.

More and more revelations are surfacing about widespread paedophilia and worse, which is being covered up by the Vaitcan and other high ranking Christian Church officials and politicians worldwide. This kind of thing is not exclusively happening in Christianity and Zionism either.

So, this is why I do not consider Muslim extremism to be worse than Zionist/Jewish or Christian. I consider the Zionists and their Christian accomplices, who lurk in the shadows and stay out of the negative spotlight, every bit as evil. Evil is evil, whatever name you give it, and history and current disclosures convince me that not one of these evil, murderous, repressive so-called religious organisations are anything but satanic at their core. Right now Muslim extremism is being given a lot of press, and this is in fact fuelling more Muslim extremism.

The criminals who own the press know exactly what they are doing, and it is deliberate. It suits them perfectly to keep public opinion in a frenzy about Muslim extremists and focused on them. Meanwhile, in a much more invisible sphere, they carry out acts which are every bit as demonic. In the same way, the Muslim fanatics focus the frenzy on the West, for exactly the same reasons.

I mean, do you think they would have the support necessary to attack all the Muslim countries they intend to attack unless they manage to keep anti-Muslim feelings at fever pitch in the West? And do you think there would be as many Muslim extremists were it not for the constant provocation by Western governments?

We, the ordinary, decent people of the world, are the ones who pay the highest possible price for all this.

If I could choose a solution, I would put all the fanatical, murderous Zionists, Statnists, Christians, Muslims, and every one of their kind on another planet and let them wipe each other out.

Who knows, if there ever is such a thing as a 'rapture' that might be what it turns out to be. The higher beneveloent forces in the Universe might do earth the greatest of all favours and do exactly that - and let the ensuing waves of rapture envelop the earth, freed of their evil malevolence. Sadly, I doubt that will be the case but one can always hope

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in