Fox News' Islam problem
Fox News' recent rush to defend Rev. Franklin Graham, who described Islam as a "wicked" and "evil" religion, including hosting him on Fox & Friends, is just the latest example of Fox News' relentless crusade against Muslims. The network has a history of making controversial assertions about Muslims -- often by baselessly branding them as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathizers" -- calling for profiling, or equating Islam and all of its adherents with radical extremists who claim to act in its name.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Fox rushes to defend Franklin Graham, hosts him to attack Islam
Fox & Friends hosts Graham, who calls Muslims "enslaved by Islam" and claims with Christianity, "they don't have to die in a car bomb." On the April 22 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News hosted evangelist Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, to discuss reports that the Army is considering rescinding its invitation for Graham to appear at the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer due to objections to his past description of Islam as a "wicked" and "evil" religion. During the segment, Graham preached that Muslims should convert to Christianity and said that they should know that "they don't have to die in a car bomb, they don't have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God, but it's through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone." Graham also called Muslims "enslaved by Islam." Later in the show, Fox News' Peter Johnson Jr. defended Graham, offering many reasons why Graham's past statements about Islam should be forgiven, including that "[a]fter 9-11, a lot of folks were making those statements." Johnson concluded: "It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it wrong. He is a human. He may have made a mistake, but do we condemn him now because he's a Christian preacher?"
Michael Graham on America's Newsroom: "If I were looking for problems with riled up Muslims at the Pentagon, I wouldn't be worried about Franklin Graham." On the April 22 edition of America's Newsroom, conservative radio host Michael Graham said: "If I were looking for problems with riled up Muslims at the Pentagon, I wouldn't be worried about Franklin Graham. I'd be worried about the Army sergeant -- captain, excuse me, who was communicating with an Al Qaeda terrorist by email who was telling his colleagues at the Army Medical Corps he wanted to cut off their heads and pour hot oil down their throats before ... he shot up people at Fort Hood," which co-host Martha MacCallum called a "good point." Michael Graham referenced charity work that Rev. Graham does, including a hospital in Khartoum which "has been bombed several times ... not by Mormons or by Methodists, hint hint," and said it was "unfair to Franklin Graham and his ministry" to "take the National Day of Prayer issue and try to turn to these ancillary issues about the outstanding problems inside Islam." MacCallum referenced the court decision on the National Day of Prayer and claimed that "there may be a larger agenda here at work."
Michael Graham previously called Islam "a terrorist organization." For comment on Franklin Graham and the controversy over his attack on Islam, America's Newsroom hosted Michael Graham, despite the fact that he was reportedly fired by WMAL-AM "after he refused to soften his description of Islam as 'a terrorist organization' on the air." The Washington Post reported on August 23, 2005:
According to WMAL, Graham said "Islam is a terrorist organization" 23 times on his July 25 program. On the same show, he also said repeatedly that "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews" and that "the problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam."
O'Reilly tease: "An Unwarranted Attack?" According to FoxNews.com, the April 22 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor will feature reports on the controversy surrounding Graham's National Day of Prayer invitation. The promotion read: "An Unwarranted Attack? Franklin Graham's under fire for his views on Islam, but is it fair?":
Fox Nation promotes the Graham story. Fox Nation also promoted the story with the headline, "Objections to Franklin Graham at the Pentagon":
Fox has a history of smearing Muslims
Fox & Friends baselessly suggested Muslim scholars are "terrorists." On the March 30 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox & Friends baselessly suggested that Muslim scholars Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib -- who were both denied entry into the United States under the Bush administration but had the ban lifted by the Obama administration -- are "terrorists." However, both have denied engaging in terrorist activity, neither was ever charged with any crime, and media accounts have noted that they "were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy." Co-host Steve Doocy said: "President Bush banned these two guys from the United States because of alleged ties to terror, but Hillary Clinton invited them back and now they're speaking to college kids about their life story. What's that about?" An on-screen graphic included the text, "Terrorist to Lecture?":
In a later segment, Carlson claimed of Ramadan and Habib, "[N]ow, they're getting access to not only our country but to the minds of our kids on college campuses."
Kilmeade: Muslims "have to understand" being profiled because of "the war that was declared on us." On the November 10, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade told Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham: "You get a chance to talk to a lot of Islamic experts, Muslim experts, and people who understand the Quran, and I asked him one time, off camera, I said, 'How do you feel about the extra scrutiny, clearly, you're getting at the airports?' And he said, 'I'm all for it, because I want to get home to my family, too.' And that's really got to be the attitude. So, if you're Islamic, or you're Muslim and you're in the military, you have to understand ... and that's just the fact right now in the war that was declared on us."
Carlson: "Could it be that our own military is so ... careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?" On the November 6, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked, "Could it be that our own military is so politically correct right now ... to be careful about treatment of Muslims that they would have allowed this to go by?"
Kilmeade asks if "it's time for the military to have special debriefings" of Muslims, because "I've got to know the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me." Following the shooting at Fort Hood, Kilmeade asked on the November 6, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends: "Do you think it's time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim Army civilians, officers, anybody enlisted, because if I'm going to be deployed in a foxhole, if I'm going to be sticking in an outpost, I've got to know the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me." Guest host Peter Johnson Jr. asked Fox News legal analyst Geraldo Rivera, "You won't countenance special screenings for Muslim officers, will you? ... Will you countenance that?"
Coulter: "If all Muslims would boycott airlines, we could dispense with airport security all together." On the March 25, 2009, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Ann Coulter claimed that "if all Muslims would boycott airlines, we could dispense with airport security." Coulter defended her position on racial profiling by calling it "insane, when you have limited resources, to be searching every single person at airport security."
Doocy: "All of the people who try to blow airliners out of the sky pretty much look alike." On the February 16, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, former Homeland Security research analyst Michael Hoffman claimed that "if you want to prevent another airline being blown up, you're going to have to do full-body imaging or full-body patdowns, coupled with profiling. Otherwise, we're going to blow another airline up." Doocy responded: "Every time we go through, my wife and I go through airport, she gets a full-body patdown ... even though she does not look like what we have presumed the people who want to blow up airlines look like."
Kilmeade: "[I]f you're a 20- to 30-year-old Islamic male, even if you have no evil intentions, expect to be delayed. We have to profile." On the January 4, 2009, edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade said, "[N]inety percent of these terrorists are men, Islamic men, between 20 and 30. Why are we pretending that all of us should get equal training [sic]? Shouldn't we just tell -- if you're a 20- to 30-year-old Islamic male, even if you have no evil intentions, expect to be delayed. We have to -- we have to profile."
McInerney: "If you are an 18- to 28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip-searched." On the January 2, 2009, edition of America's News HQ, Fox News contributor retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said that "we have to use profiling. And I mean be very serious and harsh about the profiling. If you are an 18- to 28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip-searched. And if we don't do that, there's a very high probability we're going to lose an airliner." After host Julie Banderas noted that profiling would be "essentially singling out people because of a religious group," McInerney responded, "If that age group doesn't like it, then what are they doing to stop this jihad against the West?
Coulter: Obama should "start looking for passengers who look like the last three dozen terrorists to attack airplanes." On the December 30, 2009, edition of Glenn Beck, Coulter said that President Obama "is in a position even stronger than George Bush to do what ought to be done and that is to start looking for passengers who look like the last three dozen terrorists to attack airplanes. He could engage in -- whatever you want to call it -- racial profiling, ethnic profiling, looking for young Muslim males, foreign-born Muslim males."
Coulter claims Muslims "have acclimated to ... the victim culture" in the United States. On the November 13, 2009, edition of Hannity, Coulter claimed that "we used to acclimate new immigrants to America to become Americans. The one part Muslims really seem to have acclimated to is the whole victim culture. And on 9-11 they became the number one victims, priviledges, and no one will act when [Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nadal Hassan] is going around saying infidels need to be beheaded." Coulter called the Army Chief of Staff's statement that it would be a greater casualty if "diversity is a casualty," "stark raving mad crazy, but that is what the victim culture leads to. You can't imagine them keeping somebody who talked like this on if he were anything other than Muslim."
Peters on Fort Hood shooting: "It's clear that the problem is Islam." On the November 10, 2009, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News strategic analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters said he was "offended" that Obama said the Fort Hood shooting was "hard to comprehend." Peters claimed: "No, it wasn't hard to comprehend, and it's not now. It was the act of an Islamist terrorist, who gunned down 55 people -- 54 people -- because he believed he was doing the will of Allah, in accordance with the Quran. Not hard to understand, the evidence is there." Peters asked: "Where are the Southern Baptist suicide bombers? Where are the Methodist marketplace massacre types? It's clear that the problem is Islam."
Peters: "I am sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace. ... I haven't seen a lot of Southern Baptist suicide bombers." On the September 10, 2009, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "the elite liberal media in America does not want to continue to whip up anti-Islamic fascism sentiment." Peters responded: "No, they'd rather whip up anti-Israeli sentiment." Peters continued: "I am sick of hearing that Islam is a religion of peace. Well, if Islam is a religion of peace, fine, start acting peaceful. But I haven't seen a lot of Southern Baptist suicide bombers lately, and I will not stand for moral relativism. 9-11 wasn't our fault; it was fanatics who attacked our country because they hate what we stand for."
One must wonder whether Franklin's studies included anything factual about the historical origins of Islam.
Otherwise, he'd know that Islam incorporated theologies known to Muhammad.
Including Christianity.
So tell us Franklin, just which parts of Islam are "wicked" and "evil"?
I might add, honor killings are more of a cultural phenomenon than a specific religion. This documents a Christian "honor killing". The practice is despicable no matter who is doing it.
You are uninformed, and, based on your posts, you are not a conservative at all. Demonizing and labeling all who disagree with you is not a "conservative value." It's a Fox/hate talk radio value. Two different things.
Wow, one incident world wide and from palestine, imagine that. If it is a cultural phenomenon, it's muslim culture. A religion of peace that today kills in the name of their god, allah and his pedophile prophet mohamed, (may no cartoon ever be printed about him) is a cultural phenomenon that needs to be eradicated. If the religion foments that kind of hatred in its expression of religiosity, then the religion IS wicked and evil. If it isn't then its leaders will stand up against the villains, as Christians do, when they see evil in their midst. Until then......................
I know that daily we hear of Christians killing for honor as opposed to the muslim religion just loving people to death!
A proud conservative, speaking truth to progressive power with a shout out to those who are uplifted by the 'religion of peace'.
Have a blessed happy mohamed torturing season! :>
As recent as the ..... middle ages???
Duck all loving mohammed, here comes another rock in your direction..
...what a joke...
Close enough.
not that you would care to point that out because you wanna indulge in your hatred and bigotry.
Then 'splain which is the religion of peace and which is the religion of real peace!!
Awaiting on you getting your 'shia' together 'sunni' (harry reid says that I can speak in a muslim dialect when needed!) so I can marvel at your insight.
Happy honor-killing your daughter month! :>
Keep on showing your ignorance and pretending that it makes you "conservative." What a tool.
I'm a little confused, honor killings are not religious, but they are practiced in all religions......what? Well which is it? Maybe you are a little flustered, or maybe you meant to say it is practiced in all cultures? (Which is not the case.)
Do you know the difference between the Safafist ans Sufi branches? If not I would submit that it is you who is ignorant of Islam. As a fan of Sun-Tze I have made it a point to study my enemies carefully. Ergo, I know quite a about Islam and B Hussein Obama.
I have no particular quarrell with Sufis, but Salafists/Wahabists are bad news. Educate yourself a little about Islam and you will see that I am right.
I have read the "holy" Koran as well as the hadiths. Sun Tze would have and I did. I understand Islam reasonably well and I know that it is a violent death cult.
You are not right and have almost never been right racista comemierda.
Hardly. Sun Tze said it is important to know your enemies. I am actually quite knowledgeable about Islam. I have studied the Koran as well as the hadiths. It is because I do know Islam that I despise it.
I can tell you the theological differences between Shiite and Sunni (beyond the question of successsion --- Shiites wanted Mohammed son-in-law to succed him where as Sunnis wanted a council of elders).
In terms of terrorism - Shiite versus Sunni is far less salient than Sufi vs. Salfist.
Both Shiites (Iran, Hezbollah) as well as Sunni (Wahabists, al-Qaeda) are terrorists. Very rarely if ever are Sufis terrorists, but Salfists are extremely dangerous.
I would not have much of a problem with Islam if all Muslims were sufi - they are peaceful. Salafists are violent killers. Both Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are salafists.
Still want to claim I am ignorant about Islam?
I dislike Islam precisely because I am not ignorant about it.
Abraham had two sons. The first was Ismael who was the product of a concubine.
His second son Isaac was the product of Sarah, his rightful wife.
The descendents of Isaac were good and righteous. They became the Jews (from which Christianity is descended).
The descendents of Ismael became evil and wicked. They became the Muslims.
Basically Islam is descnded from evil and wicked where as Judeo-Christian faith is descended from virtue and righteousness.
As Isaac was Abraham's legitimate son and Ismael was not, it follows that Judeo-Christian faith is more legitimate than Islam.
You do not know much about the Troubles in the Six Counties. They were not based on theology. It was more based upon class and ethnic background. Gerry Adams and Iam Paisley are basically just thugs. It was more gang warfare than religious struggle.
The IRA and the Unionists were more like competing mafia families than terrorists. Do you consider the mafia terrorits - it is ambiguous, but the mafia does not kill in the name of religion. Islam does.
Yeah. Everybody knows that ALL members of any given religion can be judged by the actions of a few. Like the Christian fundamentalists who advocate violence against abortion providers. Or the long, long, LONG history of wars in the name of Christianity. Or how the Christian fundamentalists who advocate the destruction of the Dome of the Rock because they want the Temple to be rebuilt so that Jesus can return. Or the recent crisis in the Catholic Church mean that every member of the priesthood is a child molester. Or how all Christians think that the world was created 6000 years ago. Or the followers of "prophets" like David Koresh. Or the white supremacist groups that justify themselves with the Bible. Or how Fred Phelps and his followers mean that all Christians admire his "God Hates Fags" -- and the even more incomprehensible "God Hates Sweden" websites. And uncountable others.
The people yelling the loudest in favor war on both sides are right-wing extremists. People like you, proudcon, who don't risk anything personally, who readily spout things that aren't true, that ignore any facts they dislike, and who justify hatred and violence in the name of patriotism and religion. Here in the US, most who claim to be "real Americans" don't understand (or don't care) that one of the founding principles of this country is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION -- that means that people don't have to agree with you, and it means the when people call you out on your BS claims they aren't SILENCING you, they're pointing out flaws in your arguments/claims. When you oversimplify and disregard facts or make claims that, for example, the United States is a Christian nation (it isn't now and never has been; see the Constitution) or that anthropogenic global climate change is some kind of bizarre conspiracy despite having been thoroughly verified (see every single peer reviewed paper on the subject), or that Islam is a religion of terrorists (see above), you aren't strengthening your position. In fact, you're demonstrating beyond a doubt through your willful disregard of facts shows you to be either so completely incompetent that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about or that you're lying.
I am not, nor have I ever said that progressives should be silenced. I'm praying that they don't insist on controlling the free expression of American's expression.
What makes this country exceptional is that it is based on principles that recognize a power greater than ourselves (our Creator) that gives us rights, not a man made government. Those guys were either Christians or deists but they recognized that freedom of expression and religion. That doesn't make the US a christian nation, even if it most of its populace is.
I don't resist the muslims on patriotic or religious terms, it is the wicked form of moral expression in so many of its followers that make it evil.
Hey, no reason to bring BJs Catholics into this.
I avoid Muslims. I don't want to take the risk that they might be a jihadist.
...what a joke.
So, using your own rationale, BJ, that would mean that you hang around Catholics in hopes that they are pedophiles? Very telling...
The history of Islam is that it was spread by armies that conquered other lands. It subjugates and encourages violence against women. Have you read the hadiths? I have. The "relgion of peace" is responsible for more violence than any other entity in the world.
It is an absolute canard that jihad means struggle - it means kill all infidels.
Other religions live in peace with one another. Christinas do not attack Jews. Hindus do not attack Christians. Buddhists do not attack Shintos. All religious conflicts (Chechnya, Mindinao, Israel, Kashmir, Nigeria, etc) involve Islam's inability to live peacefully with its neighbors.
Mohammed a "profet"? Give me a friggin' break? Real phophets have a very unhappy end. Ezekial, Job, Daniel and Elijah did not have happy lives. Mohammed lived a life of luxury with his harem of nine year old wives. He sold the Koran for profit. Islam was a great big scam.
He's a pathological liar who's been outed as such multiple times. He's a troll who's not interested in participating in a fair discussion of any topic - just read his distortions of reality above.
Please don't feed this troll.
Those scantily clas women in Haiti were just asking for it!
Since we are pointing out issues with Islam:
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues.
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded.
First Crusade 1095 on command of pope Urban II.
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children).
Begin of violence on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000.
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
Skip ahead a few centuries:
Catholic extermination camps:
Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
Do I really need to go on. You two can continue to act like Islam is the only religion that has practiced violence but; it isn't. No one here has yet said that Islam doesn't have issues. The problem is you can't judge anyone by isolated cases that you pick out of your hat.
Why hold punches. Benedict XVI is personally responsible for more deaths than Stalin, Hitler, Saddam and Mao combined.
Does or does not Islam subjugate women?
Is it legal or not to beat your wife under sharia law?
Was or was not Islam spread by the sword?
Did or did not Mohammed die wealthy?
Was or was not his second wife Aisha nine years old at the time he married her?
Are the Hindus or the Muslims more responsible for instigating violence in Kashmir?
Who initiates violence in Mindinao - Abu Sayef or Philippine Catholics?
You can't touch me on substance. You can't dispute the factual accuracy of my posts, so you resort to name calling. This is a classic liberal/Alinskyite tactic.
Let's see, telling an outright falsehood or lying through omission, which is worse? BTW I think anyone who says they have never lied is probably telling a lie at the time.
Does or does not Islam subjugate women?
Is it legal or not to beat your wife under sharia law?
Was or was not Islam spread by the sword?
Try reading before asking questions out of context.
Did or did not Mohammed die wealthy?
You think that being wealthy is evil? Doesn't that go against some kind of crazy code?
Was or was not his second wife Aisha nine years old at the time he married her?
1400 years ago. Right or wrong that has been practiced for years. Are you going to pontificate against the Mormons for the same practices??
Are the Hindus or the Muslims more responsible for instigating violence in Kashmir?
Depends on your point of view, don't you think?
Who initiates violence in Mindinao - Abu Sayef or Philippine Catholics?
Should I blame the police because the Hutaree cult planned on killing the police?? All violence should be condemned.
You can't touch me on substance. You can't dispute the factual accuracy of my posts, so you resort to name calling. This is a classic liberal/Alinskyite tactic.
What factual accuracy? The fact that you can cherry pick instances of people using violence against others?
Does that mean that all right wing militia members plan on bombing federal buildings, just because one of them did?
You are a follower of Saul Alinsky??
Well, how about that?
1400 years ago. Right or wrong that has been practiced for years. Are you going to pontificate against the Mormons for the same practices??
Uhhh, dell said Christianity is evil for what they did 600 years ago (although most of her complaints were against catholics, which isn't the same as Christianity). Why can't Islam be held accountable for their history too? And, yes mormons are accountable for their actions also.
"I have said I despise him - I have said I loathe him - I said I have no respect for him - I have said he is repugnant. I never said I hate him." -- BJFan
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003190090
"How am I dishonest. I have never represented myself to be anything other than a right wing conservative. I hate Obama - I want him to fail. The government is my enemy." -- BJFan
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003090027
And...
I don't usually watch Glenn. Obama only got into Harvard because Kahalid al-Mansour and Percy Sutton greased the skids. He certainly did not gain admission on the basis of his LSAT score. As someone who has taken the LSAT, I would be absolutely stunned if BHO got any higher than 140 on the LSAT.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003080026#763646
I NEVER took the LSAT. How could I claim any score on a test I never took. You are flat out LYING.
Sure, maybe those are the mean scores for Harvard law school - but we all know that those weren't Barry's scores. He got into Harvard because Khalid al-Mansour and Percy Sutton greased the skids.
I would be STUNNED if Barry got over a 120 on the LSAT. He did not gain admission to HLS on his merits. His admission was rigged and fixed.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003180037#779618
______________________
So, you SAID you hated Obama, and then you DENIED that you had ever said you hated Obama. You LIED when you wrote that you had never said that.
And then you SAID that you had taken the LSAT, and then you said that you had NEVER said that you had taken the LSAT. You LIED when you wrote that you had NEVER said it.
And you're lying on this thread, denying that you ever denied these things, or denying that the proof has ever been pointed out to you, or asserting that you "explained" all these things.
ALL LIES. You're a pathological liar, BJF. And a troll, just out to get negative attention. And the ONLY reason I reply to you is because MORE people need to learn to NOT reply to you with ANYTHING but ONE poster debunking you, mocking you, and telling others to NOT feed you or reply to your troll posts!!!
Wow, you are just unbelievable, aren't you?
YOU repeatedly, over and over, accused him of two things you NEVER proved. Yes, he was accused of OTHER lies, one from you, and sometimes others from other people. The two listed above are the most egregious that were easily provable and undeniable. But there were two accusations that you repeatedly made that you could never prove, because they weren't true. You remembered incorrectly what he had written.
Like I said. You're a foul liar on this topic.
You said, and I quote, "He also, in the quotes which I will produce, stated that his IQ was roughly the equivalent of Palin's." You also said "I'm not a liar. I'll have the quotes for you, BJ fan, just like DellDolly and others have produced quotes which you claim didn't exist. I was sick over the weekend [still not well] and am very busy today, but the quotes are there."
He never said what his IQ was, and he never said that it was similar to Palin's. And you never produced that quote, because he NEVER said it! However, you repeatedly, over and over, day after day, said that he DID say it, and that you would provide the quotes.
You also claimed he had said that he voted in another country, and he never said that either.
I TRIED to find the quotes you said existed when you failed to do so. They don't exist. That's how I documented the other lies - by finding them. But the two purported lies you suggested existed don't. Your photographic memory failed you.
And I have explained this about 10 different times.
I'm not wrong. What's unbelievable is that you won't admit this to take that weapon off his plate!
At 4:30 I posted this...
Don't even bother trying to debunk what he says here.
He's a pathological liar who's been outed as such multiple times. He's a troll who's not interested in participating in a fair discussion of any topic - just read his distortions of reality above.
Please don't feed this troll.
####################
But then multiple people replied to him. So, in ANOTHER attempt to stop people from feeding him, I posted the details about the patholigical lies, rather than simply STATING that he was a liar. I put the qualifier in there that the two accusations YOU repeatedly made hadn't been true, so that he wouldn't have that OUT to use to squirrel his way out of the accurate depiction of his actual documented lies!
And YOU have no clue how to stop trolls - you've proven that time and again, and so you have no standing to try to claim that I'm going about it the wrong way. I'm not.
Treating like he's someone you're trying to have an ongoing conversation with is FEEDING the troll. I didn't do that. I don't do that. Briefly debunking what someone is saying, then mocking them, then telling others to not feed them is NOT feeding a troll post!
Please, get a clue. Get a grip. Stop denying the undeniable. You made two claims about lies he told that you repeatedly said you'd back up, but you never did. I don't know if you tried to back them up or not, but had you tried, you wouldn't have been able to do it, since your eidetic memory wasn't very good in those cases!
Grow up Sue. You need help.
She has kneejerk reactions to things that she often, but not always, has to walk back. I accurately described her behavior above and explained why it was wrong.
And thanks for showing everyone that because you could NOT refute a thing I said, your only option was to make bogus personal attacks!
You phony.
Then posts several hundred+ word responses to the troll, while pointing the bony finger of blame at others.
Another cup of hypocricy, anyone?
People who commit abortions are baby killing murderers. This is not a lie - it is my opinion and I ABSOLUTELY stand by it. Gassing Jews was legal 70 years ago in Germany. Just because it was legal does not mean those responsible are not murderers. Your argument that it is not murder because it is legal is patently absurd.
It would be a lie to call Son or Sam a murderer if he were in fact innocent. It would be a lie to call the Duke lacrosse players rapists because they are innocent.
You have not proven one single lie, so you have no grounds to call me a liar. I am owed an apology.
Nobody is debunking anyting. Calling me names does not count as debunking an argument.
Calling me a liar does not disprove my contention that Percy Sutton and Khalid al-Manosour greased the skids for Barry to get into Harvard. There is NO WAY he has anywhere near the brains to gain admittance based up on merit.
Hating - I made a misstatement born of frustration and retracted it. When you were a small kid, did you ever tell your parents you hated them? When you eventually apologized and told them you did not in fact hate them were you lying when you said you hate them when you in fact did not?
Was or was not Islam spread by the sword?
__________________________________________________
As was Christianity! It continues today because of Bush #2!
Do you read what you write?
The history of all religions and cultures has been spread by the sword. What were the crusades? The inquisitions? Atila's and Ghenghis Khan's armies? Alexander the Great?
And tell me how does Christianity liberates women? You are a fundamentalist catholic. Women are not allowed to serve as priestesses and could not attend church during early christianity. And the hadith are texts in no way different form the laws in Exodus and Deurotomy. Responsible for more violence than any other entity in the world? Would be true if you ruled out all of the world's armies and gangs and militias.
Do you acknowledge any of the crusades or inquisitions? Hindus have attacked chrisitans and vice-versa. Buddhists don't attack Shinto because they have merged so much that they are practically the same religions. and also Buddhisms is less a religion and more a way of life. There aren't any official texts and just a basic way of life.
Job wasn't a prophet. And you are apparently ignoring Daivd's multiple wives (and his male lover). And him having a "nine year old" wife, aside from being slanderous, it certainly shows your lack of historical context. During early times the purity of children was not acknowledged and also because of the high mortality rate, many men married yournger girls to have any actual children. The virgin Mary is assumed to have been at least 16 when God got her knocked up. And even now some countries still allow marriages between marginally young girls and old men (India is anotable example). Also many historical figures had many wives. And suddenly you have hatred for Mohammed's entrepeneurship. Communist.
[proceeds to say all Muslims are bad people]
Oh, and please figure out which way you're going to misspell "prophet", you anti-Semitic sack of crap.
Perhaps the part that is threatening the creators of the show South Park if they show your muhammad in their show depicted as something they don't approve of. You may remember what happened to a relative of a famous painter who depicted muhammed in a casual way, only to be murdered because of it. You're defending an evil religion which hates and murders people for simply being gay. Is that the religion of your choice? You may not want to stay in this forum if it is. The many liberal posters on this site really love gay people, so Islam would not be a welcome religion, here. Considering how they treat women and gay people.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-south-park-20100423,0,5940860.story
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3642673
On Wednesday, Graham told Fox News that he loves Muslim people and wants them to know that God loves them, even if they can be saved only through Jesus Christ. "I want them to know that they don't have to die in a car bomb, don't have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it's through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone," Graham said.
"I love the people of Islam but their religion, I do not agree with their religion at all. And if you look at what the religion does just to women, women alone, it is just horrid. And so yes, I speak out for women. I speak out for people that live under Islam, that are enslaved by Islam and I want them to know that they can be free," he added.
Thanks for showing us that you don't understand this simple concept - that pointing out someone's flaws in one part of their life doesn't mean that they're Satan!
Now perhaps you can adress my original response that I agree with Rev Graham that Islam is evil and wicked because they DO execute people simply because of depictions of their muhammad. Did anyone get executed when there was an art depiction of Christ bathed in pee, a few years back?
I'm not saying there aren't some nice muslim people, but the fact remains they would be nice in spite of what their religion teaches them.
Quick question; is Salman Rushdie able to freely walk the streets of Iran, or anywhere without fear of being executed by followers of Islam?
another quick question; How did Theo Van Gogh die and who murdered him and why?
Now, tell me again why Franklin Graham is wrong with his depiction of Islam as being evil and wicked? And WHY are you defending executing gays and other innocent men/women/children?
Yes you are.
No it doesn't. I think you can't make a real argument, you make up an argument.
I do not hate gays at all. I pray for their conversion to a morally upright lifestyle.
Gays are like lost sheep who have goen morally wayward. A good shepherd searches for the lost sheep of his flock.
Think Prodigal Son. Gays are our brothers and sisters. Because we love them we pray for them to return to a moral lifestyle and return to Jesus' flock.
Gays are welcome back when they express remorse for their sins.
Unless they're Muslim civilians.
Here you are pushing your belief system on others. I'm Jewish, so by your logic I could easily say that you are sinful and immoral for believing in Christianity. You are welcome back when you express remorse for following a false religion.
That's absolutely correct. However, when you say that you should expect mmfa to create an atmosphere of hatred concerning your religion because you had the nerve to say what you said, while they promote peace and harmony for the religion they choose to be superior. How is what you did (or Graham) different from what mmfa does by inference? Yet, mmfa considers promoting Christianity to be "incendiary rhetoric".
That doesn't make him bad in everything he's involved with. Not sure how you missed the context of what I was saying, but I'm not going to follow your tangent.
I'm not defending ANY religion or the expression of that religion. I am attacking Graham and FoxNews defense of Graham based upon the behavior HE exhibited.
This isn't rocket science.
Islam has about as much legitimacy as any other wacky death cult. Why should we show it respect. I am a Christian - I have no responsibility to show Islam any respect whatsoever.
See how dumb it is when you allow the actions of the few to dictate the response to the many?
You DO know that is true for anyone, don't you? Ask any of your Christian liberal friends, they will tell you the same thing (assuming they are Christian).
Perhaps you can help everyone figure this out. Is mmfa printing this article because they are defending Franklin Graham or because they still blindly hate anything from FOX?
The stupidity of Graham's remarks show complete ignorance. He loves Muslims but doesn't like Islam. He has no problem with his son going to Afghanistan and maybe killing off a few. Now, that's love.
Here's one typical comment.
The main justification the monarchy gave for formally expelling all Jews from Spain was the "great harm suffered by Christians (i.e. conversos) from the contact, intercourse and communication which they have with the Jews, who always attempt in various ways to seduce faithful Christians from our Holy Catholic Faith".
The idea that Islam is the only religion that has exhibited violence is crazy, as is the idea that Islam IS a violent religion because of the behavior of a few adherents!
Yeah, it's just an isolated few Muslims who are responsible for violence all over the world.
Why is Salifist branch growing more rapidly than the Sufi branch? Explain that to me if you can.
Or a dictionary.
Han pasado seis semanas. Prometiste citas y usted no ha enumerarlos.
Eres tan estupido que creo que la lengua de Galicia se llama "Galician".
Si es usted tecnicamente retrasados o estupido solamente?
Tu eres el mentiroso.
Han pasado varias semanas y todavia no admites que eres un racista.
Eres tan estupido que crees que todos los musulmanes son terroristas.
?Eres legalmente sociopata o simplemente racista?
PS: Your spanish sucks and Bintx is a woman. Racista comemierda.
I never said all Muslims are terrorits. In fact I stated the converse on numerous occasions. No, all Muslims are not terrorists, but it sure seems that just about all terrorists are Muslims.
My Spanish is better than yours. Your post is riddled with errors. Mine has none. Writing sic ever every comment does not mean I am wrong.
Here is a correction:
"I will not admit I am a racist because I harbor no racial animosity toward any group. I do not respect the religion of Islam, but Islam is not a race." - BJ
So, they all descended from one man, yet they are not a race? Uh oh. It looks like basing your entire ideology on fairytales fed to you as child is beginning to spring some leaks.
"I avoid Muslims." - BJ
"I am not prejudiced against people who happen to be Muslim" - BJ
Uh oh. Sounds like, once again, BJ is arguing with BJ in the very same thread. See if you can get your nonsense to at least agree with itself then get back to us.
"Your post is riddled with errors. Mine has none. Writing sic ever every comment does not mean I am wrong." - BJ
Now that is a classic. Even for you, BJ. Well done. Can you see where the sic would fit into this one?
...at killing people. Oh, no, wait, you don't count Muslims and Jews as people.
They got rid of remaining Jews (people who hadn't converted, and so were still Jews) so that they wouldn't influence people who had converted to Catholicism.
Torquemada & Co were trying to measure the sincerity of the conversions (there was no First Amendment in 15th century Spain). Many Spaniards today are proud of the Inquisition.
If the conversion was deemed sincere than the converso was no longer bothered. However, if the conversion was not sincere, they were forced to make a sincere conversion. The Inquisitors basically asked questions to determine the authenticity of the conversion. If the conversion was sincere there was nothing to worry about.
You are correct that they didn't want non-Catholics influencing Catholics. LIke it or not, Catholicism was the official state religion at the time. No, I do not advocate an official state religion in the US in 2010, but in teh 15th century, the actions of the Inquisitors were not inconsistent with the law. They were enforcing the dictate thet Catholicism was the official state religion.
I don't like that I have to pay taxes, but I do it. Perhaps non-Catholics didn't like the fact that Catholicism was the official religion of Spain, but it was the law whether they liked it or not. If they didn't like it they were free to move.
The killings were dramatically overstated. They mostly used Spanish water torture (waterboarding) to extract information. Nobody died of waterboarding. Actually I'm rather proud that it was Spanish Catholics who basically invented waterboarding for use against Muslims.
ROFLOLMFAO!
But, considering some are complaining that Graham is forcing his religion on others by saying what he says, you are doing the same with your 'I hate religion' rhetoric. If others can ask/demand Graham to stop forcing his religion onto others, I must ask you to stop forcing your beliefs onto others, also. Besides, those who don't believe in religion are simply ignorant of proven FACT, and only listen to artificial and unproven theory as their main guide. Which is probably sufficient for the sheeple they are.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece
My favorite is the article's footnote:
— In 2007 the victim of a gang rape was sentenced to 200 lashes and six years in jail for having been in an unrelated man’s car at the time. She was pardoned by King Abdullah, although he maintained the sentence had been fair
http://www.wluml.org/node/5832
Background
The woman, identified as Syrian national Khamisa Mohammad Sawadi, along with two Saudi Arabian men known only as Fahd and Hadyan were found guilty in March 2009 of being in the company of members of the opposite sex who are not close relatives (known as khilwa).
At their first trial, Fahd and Hadyan stated in their defence that they were delivering bread to Khamisa. Fahd argued that the offence of khilwa did not apply since he was related to Khamisa, who had breastfed him when he was a child. The court, however, rejected this argument.
One of the reasons for the rejection was that her youngest son is 10 years older than Fahd, a source said. Khamisa and Fahd were sentenced to 40 lashes and four months' imprisonment each, and Hadyan to 60 lashes and six months' imprisonment.
The woman was also sentenced to be deported to her native Syria on completion of her prison term.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html
And it's not like people who desire a Christian theocracy in the United States would want things any different. When you referred to the "pedophile hero", I thought for a second you were talking about David Koresh, who the right has canonized.
But however intolerant the religious right may be in this country, there's absolutely no comparison to the islamic societies. The muslim societies, who mete out the kind of justice referenced in the above articles, justify their barbarity on religious grounds. These are religious courts, purporting to act in the name of islam, committing these atrocities with the authority of their islamic regimes. They're despicable, and deserve much more condemnation from the west, rather than apologies.
Those referenced above aren't isolated examples. And to pretend they are, one must be an idiot or a liar.
And yes, I do know muslims. And regarding them, I'm always astonished how they can continue embracing and making excuses for their putrid ideology
BECAUSE THEY DON'T COMPLETELY CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT LIKE THEY'D LIKE TO, DUMBASS.
No kiddin, twit. That's because their ideology doesn't garner widespread support like the islamic ideology that controls much of the muslim world.
You see, that's why your analogy, or comparison, FAILS, dumbass. By and large, this is a secular society, not beholden to twisted religious dogma. In predominately muslim societies, it's the direct opposite. Beyond that, your comparison is purely speculative. We don't know that a christian theocracy in this country would lash women for sitting on the same seats with unrelated men, or lash them for being raped. And I highly doubt that would be the case. On the other hand, we do know of, and see or read everyday, the intolerance of the religion of peace. So in your attempt to condemn ridicule of the putrid ideology of the pedophile prophet, you create a strawman.
How do you know that?
However, I find it hilarious when devout Christians act as if they cannot fathom how someone could be convinced to believe such lunacy just because of religion. Every religion is lunacy, they each just have their own style of telling the fairytales.
The version of events you mention actually originated from the Arab News, an anti-islam newspaper with a track-record of selective reporting and the journalistic integrity of Sean Hannity.
Japanese extolled the tenets of state shinto and sent Kamikaze pilots out.
KKK members regularly justify what they do with Biblical ideology, as do American Nazis, skinheads.
Hindus and Muslims in India regularly went after each other saying that their religions allowed them to.
Then again, there are followers of these religions who are devoted to peace and understanding, again based on their religions.
Find extremists, a group of people that they dislike, a religion, and mix them together and you will have a religious justification for what they do.
Translate what Franklin Graham says to another religion and I wold still find it insulting. For example, I don't like the mormon religion because it treats women as sex objects in their poligamist world. But I love all mormons, as Buddha would have me do.
This twisting of facts is a common tactic used by conservatives so they can feel superior. Their way is THE right way and everyone else is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Anyone who disagrees shouldn't have rights. Denying gays the right to marry or join the military (basic rights of every US citizen) is proof of this. During the time of midnight raids and lynchings, it was blacks they didn't want marrying or fighting in the military or "mixing" with whites--now it's gays. There will always be someone conservatives want to hold back, because that's the only way they can feel empowered. Their mantra is "Hold down someone else to raise yourself up."
The KKK espouses the exact same things as conservatives. Their basic intention is to rebuild the US into a theocracy where only white, heterosexual christians born in the US deserve rights, and while they're at it, keep women in their place too. To claim that muslims are the only ones who use and abuse their religion, twisting questionable words written millennia ago to their own aims, is to ignore history: the crusades (including the repulsive children's crusade), the inquisition, Charlemagne, the Holocaust, the catholic pedophilia scandal, ad nauseam.
And by the way, BJF, do your research before you make baseless claims. Torture during the inquisition was much worse than "waterboarding". Just ask Galileo--he was burned alive. NINE-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN were tortured to death in the inquisition, which was more of a money-making endeavor than religious. And you're proud of that!? No wonder people are turning against your evil religion. BJF and elitist conservatives (read: well-funded KKK) like hir will always claim fault in others to cover up their own.
http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html
E PUR SI MUOVE!