(June 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Drich Wrote: the Nazis did this very thing against the jews.

They took their economic situation and because their were alot of prominent jews in finance blamed the whole thing on them. there was a scrap of truth in all of thier propaganda just like their is a scrap of truth in all of this. In that the jews were in finance and did infact have to levi fines and taxes against germany for reperations the allies charged for WW1. Germany used a 1/2 truth to unite their country for the greater good and continued this 'lying for the greater good campain' until the were putting literal train loads of jews into ovens.

There's nothing truthful or based in reality about Nazi propaganda concerning the jews. Not a shred of truth. They were scapegoating. Pretty much in the same way as the people you seem to listen to are scapegoating now. The scapegoat has changed, not the message. Which doesn't even need a kernel of truth. Only prejudices on the part of the recepient. You should look in a mirror to know whom I'm adressing.

(June 17, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote: My point is unles THEY (moderate Islam) speaks out against the extremeists then it is not I who lumps them together, but they who condone such actions.

OK, they do speak out, for the last time. And you don't apply the same standards to your fellow christians. You play the no true scotsman card whenever something is happening or - in the case of abyssmal ordained figures, actually celebrating the attack - you refuse to acknowledge their christianity or call them bad apples. And, by the way, to this day Brejvik claims to be a christian warrior. And to this day I'm waiting for christians to distance themselves from the attacks. They just distance themselves from the person and claim he didn't act in their name. A muslim official doing the same isn't good enough for you. Talking of double standards and stones in glass houses.

(June 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(June 16, 2016 at 12:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They don't know what isis and al qaeda are talking about...they know what they're talking about, lol..it's just hard to figure out what it was..because they're dumb.  

The man aligned himself, spectacularly, to islamists (who do, as it so happens, hate the west - they're almost defined by it).  That was clearly important to him even if a full understanding of the respective groups and their differences wasn't.

Even so, the point remains that he chose Pulse rather than any other soft target so readily available to him in one of the world's most famous tourist towns.  I mean, even if you look at it through the lens of "He wanted to attack the West," it's pretty obvious that what he was attacking was our acceptance of LGBT people.  Maybe the West was abstractly targeted, but these people died and got shot simply because of their sexuality.

What I find amusing is Drich trying to call foul on the LGBT community for using the tragedy to call for certain kinds of political actions when that's simply what happens in the face of tragedy.  It's not like Republicans haven't been beating the drum against that community for, well, ever, or that they've fought against any firearm regulations for the past 15-20 years.

Again, Gay days at disney means 1000's if not 10,000 of thousands of people lined up waiting for trams. the problem with that? Children are also in the mix, verse an atmosphere where people are seeking to 'sin'.

This was an atonement thing verse a kill as many gay people as possible thing. Again if he was looking to kill gay people by the bus load (literally) all he had to do is disable one bus of 'red shirts' and his kill score would have been double, just on one bus! or hundreds more if he went into any one of the choke points well before the first security gate. (Gay people at disney use to wear red or whatever the color of the day to show they were apart of the gay days theme, got caught in that one year...)

If he went to disney, and chose the nigh club instead then again this was an act of atonement, verse anti gay hate crime.

(June 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Drich Wrote: Again, Gay days at disney means 1000's if not 10,000 of thousands of people lined up waiting for trams. the problem with that? Children are also in the mix, verse an atmosphere where people are seeking to 'sin'.

IOW, there is no problem.

(June 17, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Drich Wrote: Children are also in the mix, verse an atmosphere where people are seeking to 'sin'.

It would be so much better if they received a good hiding, isn't it? The irony lies in you not seeing how similar your beliefs are to a christian version of Sharia.

(June 17, 2016 at 1:27 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 17, 2016 at 1:22 pm)Drich Wrote: the Nazis did this very thing against the jews.

They took their economic situation and because their were alot of prominent jews in finance blamed the whole thing on them. there was a scrap of truth in all of thier propaganda just like their is a scrap of truth in all of this. In that the jews were in finance and did infact have to levi fines and taxes against germany for reperations the allies charged for WW1. Germany used a 1/2 truth to unite their country for the greater good and continued this 'lying for the greater good campain' until the were putting literal train loads of jews into ovens.

There's nothing truthful or based in reality about Nazi propaganda concerning the jews. Not a shred of truth. They were scapegoating. Pretty much in the same way as the people you seem to listen to are scapegoating now. The scapegoat has changed, not the message. Which doesn't even need a kernel of truth. Only prejudices on the part of the recepient. You should look in a mirror to know whom I'm adressing.

guess your not a fan of idk REAL history, just the stuff you are told...

From Mein Kampf:
"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."[5]
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda

Sound familiar?

Propaganda is not propaganda if it has no basis in truth.

Which again, the Nazi's were experts at, and like wise it seems the LGBT leadership has taken notes.

If you take Mein Kampf to be historical, other than the author wanting to present an image of himself, you're more of an idiot than I thought possible.

I tried reading Mein Kampf once. Got bored after a couple of pages.

(June 17, 2016 at 1:31 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 17, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote: My point is unles THEY (moderate Islam) speaks out against the extremeists then it is not I who lumps them together, but they who condone such actions.

OK, they do speak out, for the last time. And you don't apply the same standards to your fellow christians. You play the no true scotsman card whenever something is happening or - in the case of abyssmal ordained figures, actually celebrating the attack - you refuse to acknowledge their christianity or call them bad apples. And, by the way, to this day Brejvik claims to be a christian warrior. And to this day I'm waiting for christians to distance themselves from the attacks. They just distance themselves from the person and claim he didn't act in their name. A muslim official doing the same isn't good enough for you. Talking of double standards and stones in glass houses.

again moron THIS IMAM HAS NOT!!!!!!!!!!

There is a PSA on the radio stations now that has a nice sounding middle eastern girl telling us" Islam will NEVER be seduced by or side with Evil." However they do not say who in this situation 'evil' is. They leave it to stupid white people to fill in that blank for themselves, and idiots like you assume you are on the same page with them, meaning the shooter is evil. but in truth according to their holy book Homosexuality is that evil.

(June 14, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Again I have heard this central Fl imum speak on this subject several times and never once has he yet to identify this attack as a evil act perpetrated by a radical fanatic/s.
 
He simply says Islam is a religion of peace, do not rush to judgement, has held the media and politicians responsible for death threat on social media, and carefully worded the response 'those who practice evil do not worship allah' with the implication on the evil acts, but does not out right identify the shooting or the shooter as having committed an evil act.

my question is why? If someone like donald trump and hillary clinton can both agree on this being an evil act or even a terrorist act, then why is this man giving the impression that he is walking on egg shells?

b-mine
You -told- us he did.....granted, in the same breath as you claimed he didn't........not only has this been pointed out to you previously...you've had muslims speaking out googled for your lazy ass.

-and yet you persist.