Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Swearing In On t he Quran - The Untold Story!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like

    Swearing In On t he Quran - The Untold Story!

    What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


    By Ted Sampley

    U.S.Veteran Dispatch

    January 2007



    Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.



    Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.



    The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.



    Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.



    There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.



    Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.



    Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.



    The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.



    Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.







    Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.



    When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.



    Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.



    Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.



    Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.



    In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.



    The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.



    During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.



    In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."









    For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.



    Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.



    Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.



    The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.



    In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.



    During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.



    Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."



    It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.



    Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.



    I wonder if the "honorable" representative even knows the history of Jefferson and the Barbary pirates. Probably not but it won't matter because no one in the media will embarrass him by pointing out that Jefferson used that Koran for insight into how to defeat the Islamic enemy.



    At least Keith Ellison won't be involved with pork barrel spending. How will he "bringing home the bacon?"



    Might as well swear in on a stack of National Geographics, or MAD magazines.



    You can't read this story with out realizing pretty quick that Islam can't be anything other than a blasphemous cult straight from Hell.





    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy - which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog - there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.



    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity . The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.



    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."



    Sir Winston Churchill

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    But they are a religion love! BULL****. No appeasement!

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    America paid a lot of money to the Tripoli Pasha to keep the ships from being raided.

    400 Marines were dispatched to quench the threat. Including Lt. O'Bannon.

    I don't agree with the way Islam is presented here. These guys ran their territories in fiefdoms. Critcal analysis will show that.

    I do agree that Ellison used the book to "trump" the republicans. Jefferson owned slaves also.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    What is it you don't agree with about the nature of Islam, at least according to the article?

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies]What is it you don't agree with about the nature of Islam, at least according to the article?[/QUOTE]

    The US fought Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis. These nations had pirates that did harm to our young nation.

    It was not "Islam" as a whole. It was the "Barbary States". You want to condemn a whole religion for a few.

  6. #6
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The US fought Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis. These nations had pirates that did harm to our young nation.

    It was not "Islam" as a whole. It was the "Barbary States". You want to condemn a whole religion for a few.[/QUOTE]


    are you a Muslim? I'm not condemning you by any means, but it would make sense given your many posts on the subject.

    I'm just curious, and if you were it would open up a lot more interesting conversations about religion.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,170
    Post Thanks / Like
    JC, this article - and the entire furor over a muslim swearing in on his own holy book rather than someone else's - is a cesspit of bigotry and an ugly, ugly thing.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec]are you a Muslim? I'm not condemning you by any means, but it would make sense given your many posts on the subject.

    I'm just curious, and if you were it would open up a lot more interesting conversations about religion.[/QUOTE]

    I am a believer in the Lord. I do not have a religious preference.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Doggin. Here's what I am thinking:

    1) This is a super sensitive issue.

    2) I thought it enlightening that the claims put forth in the article (from the author and Churchill) that there has been more of a continuous thread in Islamic aggression than I ever thought there was.

    3) I do not believe that all of Islam is bent of taking over the world (though that command is in their scriptures), and I don;tthink for a minute that the majority of Islamic people are in some vast shadowy conspiracy to become the rulers of he world.

    4) It seems tro me that exactly what went on then is going on now. A few are choosing to follow a very aggressive aspect of the Islamic faith. It is these few that we have to protect ourselves against.

    5) It might not be pc, but the truth is that what some religions have done to Judaism are shameful. There are aspects of ancient Cathpolicism that were extremely antisemetic and injurious to Judaism. While it might not make me feel good in a discussion, it does give me a bit of an understanding about why some Jewish people are extremely distrustul of Christians. Should I just ignore what has been done and expect that Jewish people trust the motives of the church in general and Catholicism in particular? I don't think it would be fair to expect that.

    6) Likewise with this letter. I have some Muslim firiends and teach some Muslim kids that I adore. I would defend them to anyone. But when it comes to dealing with the faith from a global perspective............... given their history, the origin of the cresecent moon symbol, their terrorist war against Israel, 9-11, what has been taught to some Muslim children about Jews, and even the history in between brought about by this letter, (in my mind) it justifies a cautious and exceedingly careful approach.

    7) I believe, but could completely understand if you do not, that one of Israel's best allys is the Evangelical Christian movement. We raise money for Israel, view them as always in need of our prayer, financial and national support. We take the prophecies regarding the rebirth od Israel in a day that are found (I believe) in Ezekiel very seriously. That said, I think we Christians have to earn the trust of the Jewish people daily.

    8) It is my hope that the Islamic world would feel similarly moved to "prove themselves daily" to the rest of the world. That would start by not only disavowing terrorism, but acting to stop it. But even as we speak, some Mideastern countries host telethons on TV that raise money for suicide bombers. Not exactly a great indicator of dissatisfaction with terrorism..........

    9) I know it is hard, and i am glad you cautyioned me about this, to speak a calm truth in such tender and pc times. But sometimes I am afraid that people do not know the history, and could benefit from it.

    Finally, know that I am not saying all Muslims are evil ands that they seek world domination. But I am extremely defensive and distrusting - as long as they blow up markets in Israel (at times rersorting to the use of children), terrorists plot to fly 10 planes into our country (as they were caught doing) and countries host telethons to raise terrorist dollars. And, as sensitive as the history and the actions are, it is very importan that everyone have all of the facts - including that the most Muslims in America today just want to love their families and live a peaceful life. But to ignore the aggressive few in our data bank would be misinformed and dangerous.
    Last edited by JCnflies; 01-22-2007 at 11:54 PM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    PS.. I could not care less if the guy used the Q'ran. I would not expect Joe Lieberman to use the Bible.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]JC, this article - and the entire furor over a muslim swearing in on his own holy book rather than someone else's - is a cesspit of bigotry and an ugly, ugly thing.[/QUOTE]
    The title of the article itself is ridiculously racist. "Muslim book of jihad???" You've got to be kidding me.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The US fought Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli and Tunis. These nations had pirates that did harm to our young nation.

    It was not "Islam" as a whole. It was the "Barbary States". You want to condemn a whole religion for a few.[/QUOTE]

    See my post to Doggin that parallels what we discussed. The important thing I was trying to bring out is that it does not matter what we think of Islam. What it is is what it is. And their history, as said in the the post to Doggin, is very suspicious (to say the least). i agree that the pirates were most likely of the lesser part, but nonetheless, some lunatics do like to justify their evil hearts by quoting a handful of verses in th e Q'ran that urges them to act as they do. On that point, whetever you or I want to believe is irrelevant. The terrorists have an evil heart, they deceive their brethren and then kill under the facade of Islamic domination. Look at he 9-11 hijackers............. right before the attacks, they were hanging out in strip bars. Not exactly what I would call a devout Muslim. I don;t believe Muslims who take their faith seriously and live to serve Allah would hang out in strip bars................
    Last edited by JCnflies; 01-23-2007 at 12:04 AM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan]The title of the article itself is ridiculously racist. "Muslim book of jihad???" You've got to be kidding me.[/QUOTE]

    Note: I can see why you think I am blastiing away at the swearing in. All along in previous posts (check it out) I said I could not care less about what he swears in on. I did find the history aspect ("to the shores of Tripoli") educational. As I read the letter, bits and pieces I recalled from HS history. To be honest, I did not notice the title or I probably woud have deleted it as that was not where I wanted the thread to go. I see your point and am sorry for not making that clear from the start.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan]The title of the article itself is ridiculously racist. "Muslim book of jihad???" You've got to be kidding me.[/QUOTE]

    It was exactly how Islam was spread. Look at the Sudan it is happening under your very nose and nobody days anything. Look at Indonesia where non-muslims are butchered every day. The movie Tears of Sun was based on things that were going on Africa at the time. If Islam is truly a religion of Peace then they had better change their way. Dont You?

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan]It was exactly how Islam was spread. Look at the Sudan it is happening under your very nose and nobody days anything. Look at Indonesia where non-muslims are butchered every day. The movie Tears of Sun was based on things that were going on Africa at the time. If Islam is truly a religion of Peace then they had better change their way. Dont You?[/QUOTE]So due tp radical interpretations of the religion, that means the ENTIRE religion preaches genocide and violence? Right, because noone has ever been slaughtered in the name of Christ. Also, the origins of how "Islam was spread" are very, very similar to Christianity.

    I guess I just don't understand your point, it seems as though you're agreeing with the title, which is saying that the Quran is the Muslim book of Jihad and it's used by Muslims to spread hate and terror throughout the world.

    My first question to you then would be this: Have you even read the book?

    My guess is no, so there goes that answer. Because if you had, then saying "it's exactly how Islam was spread" wouldn't have been in that post.

    Genocides and wars have been carried out in the name of almost every god and religion there is. Singling out Islam is only done today because it's the central religion in the Middle East and is the hot button religion at hand.

    Fact is, it has a lot more to do with the fact that they incorporate the concept of religion itself into government rather than the specific relgion itself. There's countless Islamic communities in the Middle East as well as America where they practice their religion in peace and are members of the community.

    Further, it also has to do with severe misinterpretations of the Quran itself than those actually claiming to be carrying actions out in the name of it. Same as those who have said carrying out conversions and mass slaughters in the name of Jesus is the will of God.

    Islam at its core preaches peace, love, and kindness to fellow man, same as Judaism and Christianity do. Do men kill in the name of Allah? Absolutely. But is that fair to the religion itself? Or is it fairer to blame it on radical interpretations of it?

    It's the latter, as EVERY SINGLE religion in the world falls victim to it.
    Last edited by RutgersJetFan; 01-23-2007 at 01:09 AM.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have been on numerous Islamac sites so I found out first hand how they view non-muslims. While Christanity at one time was spread inhumanly they changed. Islam has not changed and is getting more and more militant. You cant even say a word about Muhammed or Allah that they even perceive as a knock on their religion without being put on a hate list! I am not anti-muslim I am anti-fundamentalist mislim! Just like I done like bible thumping christians! BTW I have read many portions of the Quran and it does make one wonder. Jesus never ever taught hatred at any time in his life.

  17. #17
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan][B]It was exactly how Islam was spread. [/B] Look at the Sudan it is happening under your very nose and nobody days anything. Look at Indonesia where non-muslims are butchered every day. The movie Tears of Sun was based on things that were going on Africa at the time. If Islam is truly a religion of Peace then they had better change their way. Dont You?[/QUOTE]

    Listen nobody here is naive enough to say that Islam is not being used today by radical elements as a battle cry for terrorism. We know this.

    And yes, there are parts of the Koran that are without a doubt violent, even parts that condone violence against non-Muslims. Yet each of the big three suffer from this stigma.

    And your point about Islam being spread by violence...look at Christianity. I'm Roman Catholic...you know why? Because of people like Constantine and Charlemagne. They converted followers using the sword. In fact, just about all of the northern Europe became Christian by force, save the Irish (They sent St. Patrick because nobody could f*cking force their culture on us, we chose Christianity :yes: )

    Islam is not the problem. Terrorism is. Now clearly both are closely associated, but one does not cause the other. It is not because of Islam that Terrorism exists. They are fighting an enemy, the West, which in conventional terms, is infinitely superior. So they use terror tactics and guerrilla warfare against us. Its not because they're Islamic and we're not. It is because, at this particular point in history, we are the haves, and they are the have nots.

    America is not in the business, and cannot afford to, wage a religious war, no matter how hard our enemies try to bring us into one.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,170
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan]So due tp radical interpretations of the religion, that means the ENTIRE religion preaches genocide and violence? Right, because noone has ever been slaughtered in the name of Christ. Also, the origins of how "Islam was spread" are very, very similar to Christianity.

    I guess I just don't understand your point, it seems as though you're agreeing with the title, which is saying that the Quran is the Muslim book of Jihad and it's used by Muslims to spread hate and terror throughout the world.

    My first question to you then would be this: Have you even read the book?

    My guess is no, so there goes that answer. Because if you had, then saying "it's exactly how Islam was spread" wouldn't have been in that post.

    Genocides and wars have been carried out in the name of almost every god and religion there is. [b]Singling out Islam is only done today because it's the central religion in the Middle East and is the hot button religion at hand. [/b]

    Fact is, it has a lot more to do with the fact that they incorporate the concept of religion itself into government rather than the specific relgion itself. There's countless Islamic communities in the Middle East as well as America where they practice their religion in peace and are members of the community.

    Further, it also has to do with severe misinterpretations of the Quran itself than those actually claiming to be carrying actions out in the name of it. Same as those who have said carrying out conversions and mass slaughters in the name of Jesus is the will of God.

    Islam at its core preaches peace, love, and kindness to fellow man, same as Judaism and Christianity do. Do men kill in the name of Allah? Absolutely. But is that fair to the religion itself? Or is it fairer to blame it on radical interpretations of it?

    It's the latter, as EVERY SINGLE religion in the world falls victim to it.[/QUOTE]

    The bolded part is going too far; Islam is being singled out today because a highly visible number of its adherents are going out of their way to kill civillians in its name, today.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JCnflies]Hi Doggin. Here's what I am thinking:

    1) This is a super sensitive issue.

    2) I thought it enlightening that the claims put forth in the article (from the author and Churchill) that there has been more of a continuous thread in Islamic aggression than I ever thought there was.

    3) I do not believe that all of Islam is bent of taking over the world (though that command is in their scriptures), and I don;tthink for a minute that the majority of Islamic people are in some vast shadowy conspiracy to become the rulers of he world.

    4) It seems tro me that exactly what went on then is going on now. A few are choosing to follow a very aggressive aspect of the Islamic faith. It is these few that we have to protect ourselves against.

    5) It might not be pc, but the truth is that what some religions have done to Judaism are shameful. There are aspects of ancient Cathpolicism that were extremely antisemetic and injurious to Judaism. While it might not make me feel good in a discussion, it does give me a bit of an understanding about why some Jewish people are extremely distrustul of Christians. Should I just ignore what has been done and expect that Jewish people trust the motives of the church in general and Catholicism in particular? I don't think it would be fair to expect that.

    6) Likewise with this letter. I have some Muslim firiends and teach some Muslim kids that I adore. I would defend them to anyone. But when it comes to dealing with the faith from a global perspective............... given their history, the origin of the cresecent moon symbol, their terrorist war against Israel, 9-11, what has been taught to some Muslim children about Jews, and even the history in between brought about by this letter, (in my mind) it justifies a cautious and exceedingly careful approach.

    7) I believe, but could completely understand if you do not, that one of Israel's best allys is the Evangelical Christian movement. We raise money for Israel, view them as always in need of our prayer, financial and national support. We take the prophecies regarding the rebirth od Israel in a day that are found (I believe) in Ezekiel very seriously. That said, I think we Christians have to earn the trust of the Jewish people daily.

    8) It is my hope that the Islamic world would feel similarly moved to "prove themselves daily" to the rest of the world. That would start by not only disavowing terrorism, but acting to stop it. But even as we speak, some Mideastern countries host telethons on TV that raise money for suicide bombers. Not exactly a great indicator of dissatisfaction with terrorism..........

    9) I know it is hard, and i am glad you cautyioned me about this, to speak a calm truth in such tender and pc times. But sometimes I am afraid that people do not know the history, and could benefit from it.

    Finally, know that I am not saying all Muslims are evil ands that they seek world domination. But I am extremely defensive and distrusting - as long as they blow up markets in Israel (at times rersorting to the use of children), terrorists plot to fly 10 planes into our country (as they were caught doing) and countries host telethons to raise terrorist dollars. And, as sensitive as the history and the actions are, it is very importan that everyone have all of the facts - including that the most Muslims in America today just want to love their families and live a peaceful life. But to ignore the aggressive few in our data bank would be misinformed and dangerous.[/QUOTE]

    What I always find interesting in my travels is visiting Church's. No matter where you go in the world, Christian church's are almost always built on the ruins of some other religions church. Those vestiges of previous civilizations who's people had been vanquished, robed, raped, had their civilizations burned to the ground and finally converted. History is always written by the winers. In this case the Muslims of the world have not been vanquished to the dust bin of history, yet. Since we are now in the Nuclear age, we better figure out how to live together before we end civilization as we know it. I believe secular government is the best way for a future for all of us. I know that's not PC if you happen to be Christian Conservative or a radical Muslim.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 01-23-2007 at 09:56 AM.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    JCN, I just don't want you to get caught up in the hype of "Islam is Bad", or "Islamo-Fascists", like some of the sheeple on this board.

    You can't condemn 1.2BB people for the acts of a few. All of the NFL players are not like the 9 on the Bengals. I don't even think that a full team (53) of individual players had issues like those of the Bengal players.

    Even if it was a teams worth of players it would be 1/32 of the NFL. Not a fair assessment if you say "all of the NFL are jailbirds" or such clatter.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us