Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by DeadDOG

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/925040/posts

 

a defense against Islamic terror can be found in the pre World War I actions of General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing.

 In the early years of the 20th century, there were a number of Islamic terrorist attacks against American forces in the Philippines. General Pershing, acting in his capacity as the Military Governor of Moro Province, responded to the terrorism by capturing 50 terrorists and having them tied to posts for execution.

As the terrorists awaited their fate, General Pershing had his soldiers slaughter two pigs in their presence.

The terrorists believed that upon their deaths, their souls would be immediately whisked up to an Islamic paradise where they would be rewarded for their murderous deeds with eternal debauchery.

 Traditional Islamic texts describe this paradise as one in which alcohol always flows and the soul is eternally indulged with the best of every kind of food and luxury. The Islamic martyr is taught, as an example of one variation of the theme, that he will be eternally rewarded in Paradise with the benefits of a permanent erection and that he will enjoy the endless sexual pleasures of young virginal girls and beautiful boys dressed in silk shirts.

 
The same traditional texts also indicate that by eating the flesh of a pig, or even touching a pig, the Muslim is condemned to eternal damnation

 which is why Pershing's captured terrorists were horrified at the sight of the slaughtered pigs.

Pershing's soldiers proceeded to dip their bullets into the blood of the pigs, in full view of the terrorists, and then to execute 49 out of 50 who found themselves in front of a firing squad.

 These men had already been involved in horrible crimes of murder against Americans.

The soldiers then dug a large pit, threw the corpses into the pit, and then threw the pig's carcasses on top of the corpses making sure that their bodies were covered with pig's blood and entrails. The surviving 50th man was then let go as an eyewitness.
For the next several decades there was not a single recorded Islamic terrorist attack against an American anywhere in the world.

During those same years, however, the centuries old Islamic Holocaust against indigenous Christians reached a crescendo of bloodshed in Turkey with the annihilation of millions of Christian Armenians, and the world did nothing. In 1920, a young Muslim terrorist named Hajj Amin el-Husseini initiated a slaughter of Jews praying at the western wall in Jerusalem on Passover and the Jews did nothing. Rather than punishing this man, the British Governor of Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, appointed him as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem thus beginning a trend of Islamic genocide against the Jews that continues unabated.

Since World War I, in fact, the western policy toward Islamic terror has been a long and shameful string of appeasements, capitulations and defeat.

(now we have Obama doing more of the same, not that anyone else has done much more.)

 

90% of this post is bullshit and and lies. Most of which you have said is bull crap. Please quote your sources as opposed to simply using a random internet site for factual information, before making daft claims. I'm starting to think that Teala's post about the average american I.Q. being 10 is a gross miscalculation.

ahem, Just in case you missed my orginal post, explaining how the pig thing is bullshit which renders this whole argument pointless, i've quoted myself...please you fuckwits, read the damn post!

Firstly, well done Sepher for actually knowing what you're talking about, most people here don't.

SECONDLY, DID NO READ MY FREAKING POST BEFORE, READ UP ON THE SUBJECT THEN COMMENT BECAUSE THE ORGINAL POST IS RENDERED FACTLESS AND POINTLESS BY MY INITIAL POST. It's as though you refuse to read what you don't want to believe.

Originally posted by DeadDOG

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/925040/posts

 

a defense against Islamic terror can be found in the pre World War I actions of General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing.

 In the early years of the 20th century, there were a number of Islamic terrorist attacks against American forces in the Philippines. General Pershing, acting in his capacity as the Military Governor of Moro Province, responded to the terrorism by capturing 50 terrorists and having them tied to posts for execution.

As the terrorists awaited their fate, General Pershing had his soldiers slaughter two pigs in their presence.

The terrorists believed that upon their deaths, their souls would be immediately whisked up to an Islamic paradise where they would be rewarded for their murderous deeds with eternal debauchery.

 Traditional Islamic texts describe this paradise as one in which alcohol always flows and the soul is eternally indulged with the best of every kind of food and luxury. The Islamic martyr is taught, as an example of one variation of the theme, that he will be eternally rewarded in Paradise with the benefits of a permanent erection and that he will enjoy the endless sexual pleasures of young virginal girls and beautiful boys dressed in silk shirts.

 
The same traditional texts also indicate that by eating the flesh of a pig, or even touching a pig, the Muslim is condemned to eternal damnation

 which is why Pershing's captured terrorists were horrified at the sight of the slaughtered pigs.

Pershing's soldiers proceeded to dip their bullets into the blood of the pigs, in full view of the terrorists, and then to execute 49 out of 50 who found themselves in front of a firing squad.

 These men had already been involved in horrible crimes of murder against Americans.

The soldiers then dug a large pit, threw the corpses into the pit, and then threw the pig's carcasses on top of the corpses making sure that their bodies were covered with pig's blood and entrails. The surviving 50th man was then let go as an eyewitness.
For the next several decades there was not a single recorded Islamic terrorist attack against an American anywhere in the world.

During those same years, however, the centuries old Islamic Holocaust against indigenous Christians reached a crescendo of bloodshed in Turkey with the annihilation of millions of Christian Armenians, and the world did nothing. In 1920, a young Muslim terrorist named Hajj Amin el-Husseini initiated a slaughter of Jews praying at the western wall in Jerusalem on Passover and the Jews did nothing. Rather than punishing this man, the British Governor of Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, appointed him as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem thus beginning a trend of Islamic genocide against the Jews that continues unabated.

Since World War I, in fact, the western policy toward Islamic terror has been a long and shameful string of appeasements, capitulations and defeat.

(now we have Obama doing more of the same, not that anyone else has done much more.)

 

90% of this post is bullshit and and lies. Most of which you have said is bull crap. Please quote your sources as opposed to simply using a random internet site for factual information, before making daft claims. I'm starting to think that Teala's post about the average american I.Q. being 10 is a gross miscalculation.

Originally posted by Teala

What happens?  The Secret Service is thinking of charging them with trespassing?  WTF!!!!!!  They shouldn't have been able to get into the party to begin with you stupid morons!   Imagine if this couple had been members of a terrorist organization?  If anyone should be charged it is the people in charge of security at the White House for dereliction of duty.   People on blogs are more concerned with the fact that the couple in question is up fo some reality TV show...I am thinking...huh...that is what you are worried about?   The fact that this couple is trying to be a part of a reality TV show?   Screw that...you should be concerned with the lapse of security that was shown at the White House and the fact that they actually gained entrance to have direct contact with the leader of the US!  That is what you should be concerned with!

Seriously I think the average IQ of a US citizen must be around 10.

Don't exaggerate...more like 3. (Sorry i just couldn't resist!)

So 3 nominations as of yet, keep 'em coming, and awful sarcasm there signe...

Originally posted by Myrean

Forum poster? hmmm does it have a post count also?

You nominate however you want.

Originally posted by Thrakk

I nominate your moms

 

Funny guy,

p.s. no nominating me or any other members of my family...

I was just browsing these forums and an idea came to me, how about a forum poster of the year competition?

Basically you can nominate poster but bare in mind the quality of ther persons post and the content.

I will count the nominations after one week and make a poll, the 10 most popular will make it to the polls!

Happy nominating!

P.S. maybe MMORPG might wanna play some sort of role in changing the winners star rating and turning it blue or somehing...

Pow Pow

Originally posted by **?sephiroth

As I come back to this site to find that the game is still going, it is interesting to realise that this thread has outlasted a job and two girlfriends.

It's also cool to find that I'm still winning it. :-)

Not for long :p

Originally posted by outfctrl

Rate the above 3 out of 5

One of my favorite movies is "The Frisco Kid"

again 3/5

My fav all time is Forrest Gump, not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet but hands down best film ever.

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

 

 yep...

 

Please take the timie to read the thread before you post.

Thanks.

 

Yep i did and faxxer and baff nailed it.I'm a Conservative the most Conservative on the boards.

Quote Baff...Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

Actually Baff just surprised the shit out of me..

Did you read my response to Baffs post? -> explains it all.

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

 

 yep...

Please take the timie to read the thread before you post.

Thanks.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by murdera2k6

Originally posted by baff

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

 

 

 

Hume's works can be categorised into Liberalism and Conservatism but generally he comes under Conservatism, I just looked him up in some of my old Political Ideology textbooks and he comes under Conservatism in 90% of them the 10% doesn't mention him.

Yeah that didn't come up in the book i was reading but i did breifly mention Conservation.

 

I was taught that his works are classified under "utilitarianism". It's a school of philosophy.

Yeah, utilitarianism comes under Liberalism, Hume is considered the forefather of Conservative philosophy but some of the things he said cdo come under Liberalism but his main beliefs were conservative, his works were built upon by Edmund Burke, to get a full understanding of Conservatism it's useful yo look him up too.

Originally posted by baff

Hume isn't a "conservative" philosopher. (He is a Utilitarian).

 

I think one element, and perhaps the core element in conservatism, that you may have missed is the will to build for the future. To conserve. To keep what you have working, working and save it for the future. Conservation.

 

 

Hume's works can be categorised into Liberalism and Conservatism but generally he comes under Conservatism, I just looked him up in some of my old Political Ideology textbooks and he comes under Conservatism in 90% of them the 10% doesn't mention him.

Yeah that didn't come up in the book i was reading but i did breifly mention Conservation.

Originally posted by Faxxer

 

Alot of what you define as conservative doesn't quite work.

I hate to say this, but one of THE most common attempts of the left is to try and get to define WHAT conservatism is.

I have to say I reject those tennants listed....partially at least..and in some cases outright.

 

In 11th grade i had a world history teacher define conservatism as "sticking to what works" also....  that may have been true at some time but it's FAR from true now.  he defined liberalism as "willing to be experimental and try new ways to govern"....equally not as valid since most liberals want old socialism that's been tried all too many times and failed.

THIS conservative wants the government to protect my freedoms, not intrude upon them.  Keep my land free from threat and let me pursue my own happiness. Let ME Provide for my family, innovate, invent, work hard....let ME make a place I can call MINE. 

The constitution was designed to create and foster an environment where people could indeed make their dreams come true, it's too bad the left can't see it...they are too worried about the guy that made more money than them and think they ought to be punished for it.   it's a shame.

This is not my definition of consveratism, it's the definiton  by Conservative Philosophers, so yeah it is consveratism. Look up Edmund Burke, David Hume and Michael Oakeshott, they are all conservative philosophers. David Hume is regarded as the forefather of Coservative Philosophy, Edmund Burke expanded on Hume's work and Oakeshott is the main contemporary conservative philosopher. His most popular work is probably his essay 'Rationalism and Politics' in 1947. So what I posted IS CONSERVATISM, it is the ideological base of conservatism set down by Conservatives.

American Interpreation makes me laugh because they often associate it with Repbulicans but the Republican party is hardly Conservative. Please look up the philosophers, it'll help you understand what true conservatism really is.

Is this the longest thread ever?

Originally posted by Mardy

I think too many people are blindly following the 2 parties, but people really are a mix of everything.  I'm fiscally conservative, I'm into family values & high moral standards, but I'm not religious, and I'm all for scientific/technology advancement.  There's not really a word that describes who I am, and I don't affiliate with any parties.  However I do think most people are a mix of both, just too many people blindly follow the R & D, and it seems that's all they know.

But the Republican Party isn't really Consevative, they are Liberal in the sense of Libertarian. My question is, those who call themselves conservatives, are you actually conservative? Read the key concepts of conservatism and think, voting republican doesn't make you conservative.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

I consider myself a conservative so I'll respond to each of your number points:

1) I don't reject rationality and I don't think rationality is a sign of one's party affiliation.  Rationality is also extremely subjective by its nature so what seems rational to me may not to you, and vise versa.

2) I think I agree with this.  I think most people don't think about the consequences of their actions and when making complex decisions don't consider all of the ramifications and end up hurting themselves because of it.

3)  I guess according to this paragraph it would make me a Libertarian.  I think people are most strongly influenced by self interest, but I take this as a merit to our species and not a negative like many others.  Based on this I can rightfully expect people to charge me the highest amounts possible for their services, and I will spend the least amount possible.  We will come to an agreement and a voluntary exchange will take place which will benefit both of us.  They will have my money which they can use to do what they please, and I will have whatever they sold me which I had wanted.  We both profit.

4) I dunno about this, Conservatism seems pretty "visionary" to me in today's politics :)  But I agree with your paragraph's overreaching individualism.

5) I disagree with this.  Although, on second thought I suppose Nationalism falls under this category.  So I'll be neutral leaning disagree.

6) I absolutely distrust authority :)

You're definately working off a different definition of conservativism than I do but you make a good case for yours.  Interesting thread, thank you.

Sorry i should have referenced aproperly but it just takes far too long.

Basically this isn't my interpreation of conservatism, this is from the works of David Hume, Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott - the three main Conservative philosophers. Hume and Burke were writing in the 118th century and Oakeshott is the only major contemporary conservative philosopher. I am not conservative myself however i do agree with some aspects of it.

The problem with conservatism for me is the rejection of radical change, things like the suffragette movement and the Civil Rights movement would be rejected according to conservative thought.

NOTE: Many parties claim to be conservative like the Republican party but rarely do they follow the political ideology of conservatism, usually they are quite liberal in there thinking.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Hey bro, where did you get that quote?

I'm not a conservative, but rather a classical liberal/libertarian.

Hey, it's partly from my work as a student and partly from a book on Political Philosophy, it's called and Introduction to Political Theory Second Edition  by John Hoffman and Paul Graham.

I'm not a conservative either but I'd like to see what people who calim that they are conservative think after reading about the key concepts of it.

p.s. did you recieve my message?