Posted on 01/06/2013 6:55:51 AM PST by Patriot95
One should read the 1970 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Pan-Islamism”. It was downright scary and prophetic.
We can stop calling them that when they stop following the teachings of their death cult.
“Hooper tried to strike a comparison between Islamic extremism with other religions. He wrote:
There are also no — nor should there be — references to “Christianists,” “Judaists” or “Hinduists” for those who would similarly seek governments “in accord with the laws” of their respective faiths.”
To which I would observe that secular leftists in the US MSM have and do call people who advocate the Christian point of view “Christianists”, as a pejorative.
The MSM does in deed have a term for “Judaists”, they call them “hard liners” or “Zionists”.
But in both cases and for related but slightly different reasons, neither “Chriatianists” nor “Judaists” seek to force anyone into their belief system upon threat of death, nor do they seek to conquer the world. Certainly people who are Christian know their duty is to bring the truth about Jesus to everyone, but they also know that nobody can accept that message by anything other than peaceful voluntary fully informed consent.
People who support a homeland for Jews know the geographical limits of that homeland. They do not seek to overthrow Libya or Turkey. They only seek to secure the land of Israel for Jews to live.
Muslims on the other hand have an obligation to force the whole world, including David Gregory, Bill Maher and Bayonce to name a few, or else they are obligated to slay anyone who declines.
I think this was posted a day or two ago. It was late so it may be tough to find.
I think this was posted a day or two ago. It was late so it may be tough to find.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2974710/posts
“impose Islam’s Three Demands upon all unbelievers: Convert, Submit or Die?”
That’s the Kenyan Koranimal’s political game plan, isn’t it?
OK. I’ll drop the “i” word. How about using “pig-loathing. blood-lusting maniacs” instead?
Terrorists
Murderers
Perverts
Rapists
Antichrists
Sand-niggers
Goat-humpers
Towelheads
How about ‘’Worthless Saracen bastards’’?
There are other faiths who do not eat pork. Some Christian groups observe the Leviticus 11 food laws. including many Messianic Christians. The several Churches of God who are “primitive Christian” do as well.
See:
GOD’S HEALTH LAW CONCERNING MEATS
Genesis 7:1-2, Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 give God’s instructions concerning what He created “clean” (edible) and “unclean” (inedible). Long after the crucifixion, Peter still recognized this law as binding (Acts 10:14). Moreover, after his vision of unclean animals brought down on a sheet, Peter exclaimed: “God has shown me that I should call no man common or unclean” (v. 28).
from:
http://www.lcg.org/statement-of-beliefs.shtml
and:
Study Topic: Do you really want to eat that?
By Douglas S. Winnail
Why did God prohibit eating certain foods? Should you follow those same instructions today?
...
from: http://www.lcg.org/cgi-bin/lcg/studytopics/lcg-st.cgi?category=Christianity1&item=1116549049
But to draw a distinction, Mohammedans regard unclean animals as something a human must not touch either. So, for example, they will not have dogs as pets, and even Muslim cab drivers have had an issue with allowing guide dogs in their cabs, just as they would a bottle of wine. Because dog, cats, hamsters etc are not food, people who observe Leviticus 11 food laws have no problem with these animals as pets.
And you can stop a Mosque project cold by burying a dead pig at the site thus rendering it “haram” , but it matters not to a Jew or Christian who would not eat pork.
Even easier...just send them an anonymous note informing them that the site was once a hog farm (which is probably true) completely saturated with pig-$h!+.
“Jihadists it is then.”
Indeed. This puts the hammer on the head, as surely as Charles Martel.
I’m rather partial to “Islamofascist”. Can we start using that now?
No to all of the above; sons of pig f’n dogs is the rightful term.
“One should read the 1970 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Pan-Islamism”. It was downright scary and prophetic.”
Link, lease.
Nicely done!
Covers all bases.
I bet even muslim mommies would approve.
Each and everyone of us needs to thoroughly examine our immediate area, do you have a Muslim neighbor, co worker, or a mosque nearby?
Make a list of them, get that into a conservative database.Get it on Google.
The two dozen journalists who are still alive and writing should stop using “Islamist” and start using the much more accurate term, “follower of a mass-murdering terrorist pedophile”. Thanks Patriot95.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.