Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77..5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Sounds pretty cool

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77..5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Thanks VERY MUCH for this factual...well presented and erudite exposition on this horrible backward death-cult that stones women. They WILL cause untold misery in the coming decades and I fear they will be utterly wiped out.

This came from a book circulated by the native population of North America as the Euro's started to arrive in numbers.

"15%: The forcible taking of human scalps is introduced; when reciprocated in kind, is condemned as barbaric and primitive...

98%: Expect mandatory sequestration of all land, save for the most particularly arid and undesireable acres, to which the people -- those few still surviving -- will be restricted at gunpoint..

This came from a book circulated by the native population of North America as the Euro's started to arrive in numbers.

"15%: The forcible taking of human scalps is introduced; when reciprocated in kind, is condemned as barbaric and primitive...

98%: Expect mandatory sequestration of all land, save for the most particularly arid and undesireable acres, to which the people -- those few still surviving -- will be restricted at gunpoint..

would that "book" really be this thread from Snopes? - http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=34302

This came from a book circulated by the native population of North America as the Euro's started to arrive in numbers.

"15%: The forcible taking of human scalps is introduced; when reciprocated in kind, is condemned as barbaric and primitive...

98%: Expect mandatory sequestration of all land, save for the most particularly arid and undesireable acres, to which the people -- those few still surviving -- will be restricted at gunpoint..

At least Native Americans fought to keep their land and way of life, although they were ultimately defeated. Modern Americans seem determined to give it away, in the name of political correctness.

would that "book" really be this thread from Snopes? - http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=34302

Actually came from a received e-mail. Funny never the less!

At least Native Americans fought to keep their land and way of life, although they were ultimately defeated. Modern Americans seem determined to give it away, in the name of political correctness.

Anyone who thinks it is not inevitable that there will be violence and bloodshed when there is an aburpt growth of a subculture that is opposed to the "ruling" culture, hasn't lived long enough to see it, has ignored history, and has not made the connection between what happens here and what happens in other places. This isn't a mystery, although the percentages given to begin the post may or may not be just made up. The trend is correct. Islam vs. Catholicism in twenty-five years won't be pretty. And ladies, enjoy your freedom while you have it.

Anyone who thinks it is not inevitable that there will be violence and bloodshed when there is an aburpt growth of a subculture that is opposed to the "ruling" culture, hasn't lived long enough to see it, has ignored history, and has not made the connection between what happens here and what happens in other places. This isn't a mystery, although the percentages given to begin the post may or may not be just made up. The trend is correct. Islam vs. Catholicism in twenty-five years won't be pretty. And ladies, enjoy your freedom while you have it.

Wasn't that battle fought in the Middle Ages, aka the Crusades? Ironic that you end your quote about the ladies while conservative Christians in the legislature pass laws that restrict the rights of women to make choices about reproductive health.

Wasn't that battle fought in the Middle Ages, aka the Crusades? Ironic that you end your quote about the ladies while conservative Christians in the legislature pass laws that restrict the rights of women to make choices about reproductive health.

Yes, the Crusades are a great example of a historic response to Muslim imperialism. Not sure what you are talking about in your second sentence though.

Ironic that you end your quote about the ladies while conservative Christians in the legislature pass laws that restrict the rights of women to make choices about reproductive health.
Only if it involves killing another human being. But that's another thread.

Yes, the Crusades are a great example of a historic response to Muslim imperialism. Not sure what you are talking about in your second sentence though.

Believe that was CHRISTIAN imperialism, unless the crusades were fought in Italy.

Believe that was CHRISTIAN imperialism, unless the crusades were fought in Italy.

You believe incorrectly, per your usual.

Man, Caboose, you need to explain THAT further.

You believe incorrectly, per your usual.

Ok then, why don't you explain your position and what you believe imperialism to be.

Ok then, why don't you explain your position and what you believe imperialism to be.

I think you guys are forgetting that every inch of land and every heart and mind belongs to Jesus, so the crusades were an obvious attempt at Islamic imerialism.

:elmer3::chef:

And that is your opinion! Nothing more or less. I believe that Israel among others would not endorse it however.
I think you guys are forgetting that every inch of land and every heart and mind belongs to Jesus, so the crusades were an obvious attempt at Islamic imerialism.

:elmer3::chef:

And that is your opinion! Nothing more or less. I believe that Israel among others would not endorse it however.

That was sarcasm... I should've gone with the winky-face over the Elmer Fudd shooting a brown person. I forget sometimes that people on this board can post comments like that with a straight face.

That was sarcasm... I should've gone with the winky-face over the Elmer Fudd shooting a brown person. I forget sometimes that people on this board can post comments like that with a straight face.

You are right. I misunderstood your sarcasm with the beliefs of several who post. My apologies.

You are right. I misunderstood your sarcasm with the beliefs of several who post. My apologies.

I assume, Jersey Boss, that you consider yourself to be very intelligent while whimsical (your avatar)

Ok then, why don't you explain your position and what you believe imperialism to be.

Really? What was going on in southern/western Europe and the Byzantine Empire immediately preceding the Crusades?

I think you guys are forgetting that every inch of land and every heart and mind belongs to Jesus, so the crusades were an obvious attempt at Islamic imerialism.

:elmer3::chef:

Wow. Someone is full of fail.

Really? What was going on in southern/western Europe and the Byzantine Empire immediately preceding the Crusades?

My post was about what was going on during the Crusades, not before or after.

Which Crusade are y'all talking about? The ones which farted and fell before they even really got going? Or the Third Crusade? Or the Fourth which involved everyone running out of cash and provisions too early and just sacking Constantinople instead?

I am talking about all of them... the entire gambit of Crusades were initiated as a response to Muslim imperialists who were conquering Europe and the Byzantine Empire region by the sword. Sorry, it just annoys me when people attempt to white-wash Islam and portray the Muslim world as victims of the Crusades, when in reality the Crusades were largely a defensive measure against wave after wave of Muslim invaders in Europe. After tiring of fighting off Muslim invaders in Spain, Portugal, and France the West finally decided to take the fight to the Middle East. There are plenty of things of which one can be critical of Christianity for throughout history... the Crusades aren't one of them.

I am talking about all of them... the entire gambit of Crusades were initiated as a response to Muslim imperialists who were conquering Europe and the Byzantine Empire region by the sword. Sorry, it just annoys me when people attempt to white-wash Islam and portray the Muslim world as victims of the Crusades, when in reality the Crusades were largely a defensive measure against wave after wave of Muslim invaders in Europe. After tiring of fighting off Muslim invaders in Spain, Portugal, and France the West finally decided to take the fight to the Middle East. There are plenty of things of which one can be critical of Christianity for throughout history... the Crusades aren't one of them.

The Crusades were more about bringing back cash and currying favor with the Pope than anything else. The sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade happened because the Venetian fleet and the crusaders ran out of cash and weren't getting the support from Constantinople that they demanded. They ended up sacking a great city and then attacking Hungary, which was another Catholic country at the time.

It'd be more accurate to say that the reconquista was in response to Islamic imperialism and the colonization of the New World was an indirect offshoot of that.

The Franks had no part in the reconquista though except for to stop the advance of the Ummayad army after it had crossed the Pyranees at the Battle of Tours in 732. It took the Spanish and Portuguese (which were actually various kingdoms back then, mainly Castille, Aragon and whatever the Portuguese were) approximately 800 years to conquer back Iberia. And for what it's worth, the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate, Cordoba, was probably the cultural and economic center of the world while the Muslims were in charge, there were churches, mosques and synagogues everywhere, education was of great value, etc.

The Crusades were more about bringing back cash and currying favor with the Pope than anything else. The sacking of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade happened because the Venetian fleet and the crusaders ran out of cash and weren't getting the support from Constantinople that they demanded. They ended up sacking a great city and then attacking Hungary, which was another Catholic country at the time.

It'd be more accurate to say that the reconquista was in response to Islamic imperialism and the colonization of the New World was an indirect offshoot of that.

The Franks had no part in the reconquista though except for to stop the advance of the Ummayad army after it had crossed the Pyranees at the Battle of Tours in 732. It took the Spanish and Portuguese (which were actually various kingdoms back then, mainly Castille, Aragon and whatever the Portuguese were) approximately 800 years to conquer back Iberia. And for what it's worth, the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate, Cordoba, was probably the cultural and economic center of the world while the Muslims were in charge, there were churches, mosques and synagogues everywhere, education was of great value, etc.

Oh sure, I am not arguing what the Crusades evolved into with the corruption and cruelty. I am arguing against the Muslim-apologist mantra "Poor innocent Muslims were just attacked for no reason by the mean old Christian Imperialists". Sorry that dog don't hunt. Had the Muslims not been terrorizing and conquering half of Europe to begin with the Crusades never would have happened.

That mantra is about as weak-sauce (and factually inaccurate) as the "Mean old conservatives are against women having reproductive rights" garbage that Jersey tried to pull in this thread as well.

Oh Ok I implied poor innocent muslims by saying that there was violence by Christians against muslims in the past regarding PQ's statement of a takeover in 25 years. So what do you call the legislative requirements of ultra sounds and other roadblocks the legislature put up to impede a woman's personal and legal choice?

You implied it, then reinforced it with your question about the Crusades taking place in Italy (The crusades took place in the middle-east so they MUST be all about Christian Imperialism and nothing to do with Muslim Imperialism).

As for the abortion issue, the goal of these legislative roadblocks you reference have nothing to so with impeding a woman's choice or infringing upon her rights. I know that is how you like to spin it, but it is factually incorrect. Those people (pro-lifers) believe that a fetus is a human with the full rights afforded to everyone else. Their goal is to protect the unborn's right to life. To say they are trying to do anything else is pure propaganda and intellectually dishonest.

You implied it, then reinforced it with your question about the Crusades taking place in Italy (The crusades took place in the middle-east so they MUST be all about Christian Imperialism and nothing to do with Muslim Imperialism).

As for the abortion issue, the goal of these legislative roadblocks you reference have nothing to so with impeding a woman's choice or infringing upon her rights. I know that is how you like to spin it, but it is factually incorrect. Those people (pro-lifers) believe that a fetus is a human with the full rights afforded to everyone else. Their goal is to protect the unborn's right to life. To say they are trying to do anything else is pure propaganda and intellectually dishonest.


Here is an analogous scenario:

Me: Hey, I heard there is this part of Colorado where a lot of the women in these little towns bash in the heads of their toddlers in some sort weird Spring festival.
You: Man that is awful. Those innocent kids don't deserve that. The state should do something to stop them.
Me: OMG, why are you against women's right to decide? Why are you anti-woman? Why don't you think women have the right to reproductive choice?



Do you see how absurdly inaccurate it would be for me to try to portray your desire to protect the rights of the toddlers (who you believe to be people with rights) as an attack upon the rights of women? It is so absurdly inaccurate that it is hard to believe it is an oversight rather than blatant dishonesty. How could an intelligent person honestly mistake the two?

Pro-lifer: I think we should try to pass legislation that will deter abortion (if not make it all out illegal) to protect the innocent unborn.
You: OMG, you are anti-woman. You are trying to strip women of their rights. whaaaarggarrrble.

That's weak at best, Caboose.

Hmmm, let's see, we can't pass a law against it so let's punish the offenders this new way by making them jump through painful hoops. That'll teach those bitches a thing or two. Yea!! We WIN .......at least a bunch of votes from our uneducated constituents. Yipeee.

You can't legally ban firearms but some cities are sure "making them jump through painful hoops" aren't they? Tit for Tat IMO.

That's weak at best, Caboose.

Hmmm, let's see, we can't pass a law against it so let's punish the offenders this new way by making them jump through painful hoops. That'll teach those bitches a thing or two. Yea!! We WIN .......at least a bunch of votes from our uneducated constituents. Yipeee.

Again with the absurd dishonest portrayal. If I am a pro-lifer my goal is to stop or drastically reduce abortions to protect the rights of the unborn who I presumably believe are humans with rights. ... my goal is not "teach those bitches a thing or two" or to "strip women of their rights" or whatever other absurd crap you spin it in to.

See the example above. We don't stop women from murdering toddlers to "teach those bitches a thing or two". No, we stop women from murdering toddlers to protect the rights of toddlers. It has nothing to do with the rights of women because their rights stop where the rights of the toddlers begin.

This is why it is impossible to take most of you seriously as it is obvious you have never thought about the issue but rather parrot what some pundit has told you.

This tactic is no different than the typical Liberal play of calling anyone who disagrees with them on any issue a racist or a bigot. I thought you grew out of that crap when you left the Left. Apparently that habit is a hard one to break.

You may disagree with a pro-lifer about when life begins, and why abortions should be legal or unimpeded... but to claim their goal, or their intent has ANYTHING to do limiting the rights of women is not just wrong it is a deliberate lie.

Yep, it is another way of throwing a tantrum and being vindictive.

Yep, it is another way of throwing a tantrum and being vindictive.

And that's just another way of repeating the same lie.

A

You may disagree with a pro-lifer about when life begins, and why abortions should be legal or unimpeded... but to claim their goal, or their intent has ANYTHING to do limiting the rights of women is not just wrong it is a deliberate lie.

It may not be your intent but it IS the result. You are punishing women.

So if a fetus has rights as you claim, is it false imprisonment to incarcerate a pregnant woman?

You can't legally ban firearms but some cities are sure "making them jump through painful hoops" aren't they? Tit for Tat IMO.



Nothing like the logic of "Well they are doing it to"

It may not be your intent but it IS the result. You are punishing women.

Now you are getting closer to a coherent and honest argument. Congrats on taking that step. I am sure that outside of this thread though you are just going to keep repeating the same dishonest garbage. Am I right?

Ok, since I have been playing the Devil's Advocate role so long, I'll continue. Since we are talking about results now and not some fabricated portrayal of intent, explain why preventing a woman from crushing the rights of an innocent child, whether in utero or in a small town in Colorado is "punishing women". Remember, I in the role of pro-lifer, am looking at this from the default stance that a fetus is just as much a valid human life as a toddler.

So if a fetus has rights as you claim, is it false imprisonment to incarcerate a pregnant woman?

I didn't claim that.

Oh sure, I am not arguing what the Crusades evolved into with the corruption and cruelty. I am arguing against the Muslim-apologist mantra "Poor innocent Muslims were just attacked for no reason by the mean old Christian Imperialists". Sorry that dog don't hunt. Had the Muslims not been terrorizing and conquering half of Europe to begin with the Crusades never would have happened.

That mantra is about as weak-sauce (and factually inaccurate) as the "Mean old conservatives are against women having reproductive rights" garbage that Jersey tried to pull in this thread as well.

So your argument is "he hit me first"?

If you want to blame someone for first attacking the countries in the Middle East, blame the Greeks and Romans.

The East fought against the West for so long that who started it was irrelevant. Both perpetrated horrors on the other. We seem to have the upper hand for now, but as far as who has historically won more territory, props to the Ottomans. 'Course they got wooped in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... but long story short, with the crusades and the attacks of Muslims on the West, no group is innocent.

I didn't claim that.
'... rights of an innocent child, whether in utero..."

Now you are getting closer to a coherent and honest argument. Congrats on taking that step. I am sure that outside of this thread though you are just going to keep repeating the same dishonest garbage. Am I right?

Ok, since I have been playing the Devil's Advocate role so long, I'll continue. Since we are talking about results now and not some fabricated portrayal of intent, explain why preventing a woman from crushing the rights of an innocent child, whether in utero or in a small town in Colorado is "punishing women". Remember, I in the role of pro-lifer, am looking at this from the default stance that a fetus is just as much a valid human life as a toddler.

Caboose, I just realized that we have hijacked this thread. We have been fighting this same fight for a couple of years now. I will answer but if you want to keep going let's go back over to an abortion thread that we have worn thread bear.

To major differences. Babys and fetuses are different things. And yes, I know you don't agree with that. The other difference is the intent. One is OBviously inhumane and the other seems inhumane to some. Please, let's let it drop here. We will never convince each other and I like it better when we are on the same side of the issue. See ya on a gay thread, bro.

So your argument is "he hit me first"?

If you want to blame someone for first attacking the countries in the Middle East, blame the Greeks and Romans.

The East fought against the West for so long that who started it was irrelevant. Both perpetrated horrors on the other. We seem to have the upper hand for now, but as far as who has historically won more territory, props to the Ottomans. 'Course they got wooped in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... but long story short, with the crusades and the attacks of Muslims on the West, no group is innocent.

I agree with that statement with no reservations.

So your argument is "he hit me first"?

If you want to blame someone for first attacking the countries in the Middle East, blame the Greeks and Romans.

The East fought against the West for so long that who started it was irrelevant. Both perpetrated horrors on the other. We seem to have the upper hand for now, but as far as who has historically won more territory, props to the Ottomans. 'Course they got wooped in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... but long story short, with the crusades and the attacks of Muslims on the West, no group is innocent.

No, my argument is that the Muslims weren't poor innocent peace loving people who were unjustly attacked by the mean old Christians like people attempt to portray them as when they bring up the Crusades. Thank you for reinforcing my argument.

'... rights of an innocent child, whether in utero..."

Quote the whole paragraph, you know... for context... Like specifically the part where I talked about playing devil's advocate. I am telling you what the pro-lifer thinks. I am not telling you I am pro-lifer.

Quote the whole paragraph, you know... for context... Like specifically the part where I talked about playing devil's advocate. I am telling you what the pro-lifer thinks. I am not telling you I am pro-lifer.
Haven't you always portrayed yourself as one. Or is my old memory escaping me?

Wasn't that battle fought in the Middle Ages, aka the Crusades? Ironic that you end your quote about the ladies while conservative Christians in the legislature pass laws that restrict the rights of women to make choices about reproductive health.

Jersey - let me rant and know it is not intended as an attack against you, personally.

Abortion has been pushed by the left as the heart, the essense, of female equality. I don't agree and as an attorney and mother of two female attorneys, I think I have something to say about the situation. So many men think they know better than I do about what constitutes appropriate female civil rights, particularly when it is clear they are just quoting the party line and are ignoring the fact that plenty of sucessful pro life, professional women are doing quite well.

This nonsense about "reproductive health" is just that - nonsense unless someone is one of the extremely rare individuals for whom pregnancy is life threatening (and I personally support abortion in that rare instance). Pregnancy is a natural state and the right of a healthy mother to abort a healthy fetus has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive health. That is just one of the ways to put a sparkly ribbon on an ugly practice.

Most pro life professional women believe practicing responsible sexual behavior, responsible birth control and/or rising to the occasion with an unwanted pregnancy are just part of being a grown up - certainly no tragedy or hardship. That we can't handle such a situation as an "unwanted child" (the vast number of abused children are wanted, btw) suggests that we are simply emotionally fragile. Hysterical, perhaps? The weaker sex? Give me a break.

I don't know a woman over the age of 60 who hasn't had to deal with at least some of the following, personally or through a close loved one: death, cancer, horrible illnesses, abuse, betrayal, ill parents, etc. All those things are at least as traumatic as an unwanted pregnancy and so common that the best way to avoid it is to die young. Trust me, we are stronger than portrayed. Sometimes I wonder if anyone really thinks it through when they try to say we just can't handle an unwanted pregnancy because it is too hard.

I am far less worried about the right to abortion than I am about being restricted on whether I can get an education, control my possessions, choose whether I am going to wear a hood and whether males are going to be the ones who decide my life, choices and freedom.

whether males are going to be the ones who decide my life, choices and freedom.

To decide your life except for when you have an unwanted pregnancy. Then old white men deciding your life is just fine, yes?

Only 1/5 of Americans support an out and out ban on abortion. This is not a winnable fight.

To decide your life except for when you have an unwanted pregnancy. Then old white men deciding your life is just fine, yes?

Only 1/5 of Americans support an out and out ban on abortion. This is not a winnable fight.

I'm not an old white man. Reducing such a complex and painful issue to an us vs. them, left vs. right, men vs. women, old vs. young is intellectual bankruptcy. The trite response is to claim old white men are controlling my body if abortion is not an obtion. That is just words spewed out by hairy underarmed feminists that have been adopted by men and women who prefer to repeat the mantra rather than think for themselves.

Grown women among us prefer to look at it as: life is wonderful but it is tough - best to make smart decisions, live a disciplined life and deal with the consequences if we act the fool. Or we have bad luck. Life is not a long series of fun times, and dealing with such matters as pregnancy and childbirth that doesn't always result in a picture perfect child at a picture perfect time is part of it. The notion of abortion on demand as something that we MUST have is just the cries of children who think life is supposed to be easy and actions don't have consequences. And saying it is about old white men controlling our bodies is insulting. No man controls my body, abortion or no. But if I act like a foolish child, perhaps I need an old man to tell me how to behave. And that seems to be the battle cry - I should be able to do anything I want and no one can tell me anything! it's my body wwwwwaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! I outgrew that at age 6.

Ironic that you end your quote about the ladies while conservative Christians in the legislature pass laws that restrict the rights of women to make choices about reproductive health.

Such an interesting politically correct play on words when you call abortion "reproductive health." I doubt any woman is being denied her "reproductive health." Conservatives may be trying to make it harder for a woman to have an ABORTION - but let's be clear, to a conservative, abortion is murder, plain and simple. If you're going to talk about abortion, call it what it is, abortion. Few conservatives have any desire to 100% outlaw abortion. The vast majority are willing to make it legal in cases of rape, incest or medical need (AKA "reproductive health.")

Whether you favor or disapprove of abortion, stop calling it silly, misleading terms such as "reproductive health." That rarely has much to do with abortion.

If we have the ability to mitigate the consequences of bad decisions, it should be made available.

Drunk drivers often benefit from seat belts and airbags and crumple zones and whatnot.

OK, but what about the Muslims?

OK, but what about the Muslims?

Most don't get drunk and drive, but they still have access to seat belts and airbags and crumple zones and whatnot.

And while I have no scientific proof whatsoever, there is a part of me that wonders if even the most conservative of social conservatives would just give a 'meh' if the mid-east suddenly adopted a very left of center D stance for termination of pregnancy in their countries.

Pro-lifer: I think we should try to pass legislation that will deter abortion (if not make it all out illegal) to protect the innocent unborn.
You: OMG, you are anti-woman. You are trying to strip women of their rights. whaaaarggarrrble.

I think your first analogy was dumb, but this one accurately describes the silliness of the debate. If liberals want to win this issue they have to present it as what it is, a difference of opinion about what constitutes a human life. I don't get to force my religious opinions on others, so neither do they.

but let's be clear, to a conservative, abortion is murder, plain and simple.

Maybe I have insider access to the nature of reality that tells me beef is murder. Can I expect others to obey my belief?

Most don't get drunk and drive, but they still have access to seat belts and airbags and crumple zones and whatnot.

And while I have no scientific proof whatsoever, there is a part of me that wonders if even the most conservative of social conservatives would just give a 'meh' if the mid-east suddenly adopted a very left of center D stance for termination of pregnancy in their countries.

The American political parties have historically relied on there being some outside enemy to rally voters to their causes. Right now, it's the Republicans exploiting the hell out of that. Anything positive from the Middle East will be treated as either a victory by Right-thinking people or inconsequential.