It’s nice to see them stepping up. I hope there is some real commitment and force behind this.
DUBAI (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia on Tuesday announced the formation of a 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, according to a joint statement published on state news agency SPA.
“The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations,” the statement said.
A long list of Arab countries such as Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, together with Islamic countries Turkey, Malaysia, Pakistan and Gulf Arab and African states were mentioned.
This would work better if we had a decent President taking the lead with this force.
Members of the Chicken Hawk religion are always skeptical. It’s part of their morning prayer.
But beyond that, with you saying, “this force”, do you mean our President should be leading the Saudi led 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism?
I think a Saudi led 34-state Islamic military coalition is what is truly needed to make any lasting headway it this fight.
If we are talking unified coalition partners to defeat ISIS, wouldn’t the leader of the free world be the one to lead coalition against evil?
Oh, Obama ceded that leadership to France and the Saudis.
“The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations,”
I don’t think the United States needs to lead a 34-state Islamic military coalition formed by Saudi Arabia.
That could be dangerous, without having them on board with us and our goals.
I could see this quickly becoming a uniform organization either downplaying and excusing Islamic terrorism or enabling terrorism if in hands of wrong leaders.
This coalition needs good, moral leadership. That’s the problem when Obama cedes morality as president.
“That could be dangerous, without having them on board with us and our goals”
What are those goals that you say are “ours”?
This happening in their back yard, not ours.
“This coalition needs good, moral leadership”
Are you saying that a Saudi led Islamic coalition would have immoral leadership?
Islamic moral leadership is a false kind of moral leadership.
However, it is still a lot side better than immoral liberal leadership that can’t even summon the will to discern simple good and evil.
So I’ll take the Saudi leadership on this coalition over Obama, who has no moral leadership at all.
What I would like to see is a good U.S. President having great moral leadership.
Trump, or Hillary, would NOT be the answer to that simple request.
What are those goals that you say are “ours”?
A civil society without having to fear wackadoos doing mass killing of people in the name of Islamic jihad.
I had no idea that that was the officially stated goals of the United States Government. Or were you just making that up?
It should be.
Since its not, it’s the fault of our weak, helpless, President.
So when you said, “That could be dangerous, without having them on board with us and our goals.” You were playing make believe, a favorite game of those members of the Chicken Hawk religion. What you really should have said was, ” That could be dangerous, without them on board with me and my goals.”
I don’t subscribe we should live in fear of Islanic terrorists and have to live like what happened yesterday—local officials fighting this war at home and deciding which war threat is real!
We need a president willing to defeat the enemy on their turf.
So I do mean “our” goals, unless you want a repeat of yesterday constantly!
Liberals may want to live that way, but the common sense of the rest of us does not.
I don’t subscribe that we live in fear of terrorists. I believe we are living in a world filled with problems, much of a result of us sticking our noses in places we shouldn’t have. We created this mess, we own it, and we need to fix it.
As you appear to speak for the US in regards to our goals, what specific things would you do, if your were president, to achieve our goals.
Clearly, first thing: education.
Education as to what Islamic Jihad means: It means these Islamists will not stop until you are Muslim or dead.
Do you want our country to take lead to eliminate the evil or do you want to live with lives constantly disrupted like yesterday?
Education of liberals is first step so we are ready to do something serious about the enemy once we get a good president.
What specifically happened yesterday?
I agree that education is key, but not just of “liberals” ( however kevin defines them), but of all our citizenry, especially our right wing politicians. A lack of understanding of middle east politics by the cheney/bush administration precipitated this mess and now we have to deal with it. If we were to invade “defeat the enemy on their turf”, as kevin suggests, I would make sure that Chicken Hawks like kevin, cheney and GWB were the first guys in line.
“Clearly, first thing: education.
Education as to what Islamic Jihad means: It means these Islamists will not stop until you are Muslim or dead.”
Well, let’s start with educating you first.
Thanks for enlightening all of us.
LA and NYC terrorist threats against schools.
The obfuscation of the word “jihad” is normal in a non-muslim country to make Islam palatable as non-violent to the unducated.
In Islam, Mohammed was commanded by Allah (Satan) to kill the Christians and the Jews for not accepting Islam. Anyone who believes in Jesus is an infidel (Qur’an 5:72 and Qur’an 5:73). Mohammed was killing Christians not because of their sins but because they believed in Christ.
Usama Dakdok (who is a former Msulim under sentence of death by Muslims, now passionate Christian) explains the problem with the abrogation of the Koran:
” Muslims do not believe anything is wrong in the Qur’an, but the Qur’an is full of errors – not just grammatical ones. If you get my DVD, “Is the Qur’an Infallible?”, you will find a large list of errors.
Geographical errors in the Qur’an
Botanical mistakes in the Qur’an
Historical mistakes in the Qur’an
Moral errors in the Qur’an
Theological errors in the Qur’an
Legal/Social errors in the Qur’an
Scientific mistakes in the Qur’an
Also, if you read our new book, Revealing the Truth about the Qur’an, the Revelation of Error, you will lean more about the errors which are found in the stories of the Qur’an as Mohammed copied many of the biblical accounts in bits and pieces from the Bible.
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ.
If I write some of the sentences in the Qur’an to my Arabic professor and he did not recognize them as words from the Qur’an, he would give me an “F.” But the moment he knows that it is a verse from the Qur’an, the “F” will miraculously change from an “F” to an “A+” for the grammar of the Qur’an is the standard for the Arabic language exactly as your Muslim friend told you. After all, neither Mohammed nor Allah would make any errors in the Qur’an, not just in the grammar but also in the contents. But even when the Qur’an contradicts itself concerning this issues, Allah declared the Muslims to never ask as stated in Qur’an 5:101:
” O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they were revealed to you, it would be harmful to you. And if you ask of it when the Qur’an is sent down, it will be revealed to you. Allah will pardon you for this. And Allah is forgiving, forbearing.””
What I’m saying is: it does not matter what your organization says about the Koran…it matters what ISISand Islamic terorists says about the Koran and they are the ones threatening us.
So called “moderate Muslims” in U.S. should do 1 of 2 things to stop the Islamic violence:
1) Stop spreading a false religion and convert to Christianity, or stop embracing a religion that rejects grace.
2.) Denounce openly those that promote violence as Muslims. (which they fail to do many times for fear of death themsleves).
I doubt motives of many “moderate Muslims” because deception, and abrogation, of the Koran into something more moderate is one of the strategies to implement Sharia law and convert the nation to Islam and then drag out the true, violent, teachings.
Ask your “moderate” Muslim organization if they support the Islamic death sentence of U.S. Christian Usama Dakdok…my bet is they are silent against that pronouncement, which means they are not moderate Muslims at all.
And there are sorts of “errors” in the bible. How is that walking on water thing doing for you? Change any water into wine at the DQ ?
Well, you can’t argue with stupid.
Not licensed at DQ to serve alcohol. So I do not exactly pray for that at work.
I’m still interested in the answer to my question: In your bleak, godless, world view, where there is no eternal punishment for the worst unrepentant monsters among us: Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Mugabe;…given all the people they killed, tortured, and destroyed…is your eternal view “fair” to all the vicims of those socialist monsters?
I find the thought of lack of eternal punishment for the unrepentant evil, to be very bleak indeed.
Let me know when you can answer that “fairness” question, when it comes to the eternal logic of your world view.
It’s nearly impossible for anyone to accept the idea, from a pure logic standpoint, that Hitler got “a pass” at death, for his unrepentant evil, by blinking into nothingness.
Appreciate you setting the standard low for me so I can easily outperform. Thanks.
How about at a private party? In the privacy of your home? Or maybe at a wedding?
I hope all those folks end up the same place as the christians that lead the crusades, spanish inquisition, and the spanish missionaries that slaughtered their way through the americas. I am not a fan of any of them.
What determines that your “standard” is higher than Pat’s ? Your all-knowing wisdom? Or your narrow world view and self aggrandizement?
“I hope all those folks end up the same place as the christians that lead the crusades, spanish inquisition, and the spanish missionaries that slaughtered their way through the americas. I am not a fan of any of them.”
If they were unrepentant evil, thereby not “Christian”, yes they will end up in same place. So does this mean you reject the godless worldview, now that you show a disposition that hell exists?
My standard of common sense about Islamic terrorism qualifies me. I don’t minimize it, I don’t dismiss it, and I’m willing to call it out as evil.
“My standard of common sense about Islamic terrorism qualifies me.”
And, my standard of common sense when it comes to extreme radical Christian terrorism qualifies me.
That depends. If you ever define what “radical Christian terrorism” means.
That will be interesting, because whatever definition you come up with…if it involves advocacy of, or using, overt violence, I will argue that is NOT Christian, or is against simple biblical covenants in New Testament.
If “radical Christian terrorism” exists, the “Christian” part would be immediately lost in equation upon the commission of the “terrorist” action and just be “radical terrorism”.
I don’t need to define it. my standard of common sense is all that’s needed to qualify me.
Islam is the worst religion because it believes it is the last religion .
I am no quicker to condemn cafeteria Moslems than I am cafeteria Catholics .
The terrorists are not radical Islamicists .they are Islamist fundamentalists .
All religions are bogus just by their belief in knowing what God thinks .
This one , in its fundamental version just stands out above the rest in its misguided nature
If you understood anything about Christianity, you would realize terrorism in action by hurting other disqualifies you as “Christian faith in action”. Demonstrating and living the grace of Christ does not include conducting terrorism. So your “common sense” really misses the mark in Christianity.
Where terrorism and violence does not disqualify you from Islamic teachings or being Muslim. Islam has no such grace component, only promised reward for jihad.
Those christians I mentioned thought they were true christians at the time, as did their followers. No different than you and yours. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the only one enabled to determine who is or isn’t a christian you have no right to make any claims on the title.
“That will be interesting, because whatever definition you come up with…if it involves advocacy of, or using, overt violence, I will argue that is NOT Christian, or is against simple biblical covenants in New Testament.
If “radical Christian terrorism” exists, the “Christian” part would be immediately lost in equation upon the commission of the “terrorist” action and just be “radical terrorism”.
Your statement above is once again proof that you believe in selective christianity. It allows you to deny christianity to anyone that does not meet your arbitrary, selective, and ever changing definition.
Romans 3:31. (Hint, the “law” includes 10 commandments, which has clear prohibition against harming others.)
Romans 12:12. ( being joyful in hope does not mean hurting others.)
1 Corinthians chapter 13, with special attention to verse 1-4 and 6.
2 Corinthians 13:5
Galatians 3:22 (true Christian faith “locks up” sin, it does not purposely utilize sin.)
Galatians 5:22 (I challenge you to explain how a terrorist calling themselves “christian” fits this important passage.)
Ephesians chapter 3
Philippians 1:27 ( conduct yourself under “grace”)
Colossians 2:7 (overflowing thankfulness is a sign of Christian faith)
2 Thessalonians 1:3
1 Timothy 1:5
1 Timothy 3:2. (In case you feel your crusade examples were “leaders” in Christian faith in any context.)
James 2:17. (Faith without action is dead, “action” meaning good works which do not flow from sinful/ evil choices.)
2 peter 1:5 (always add “goodness” to your faith)
1 john 1:9. (Repentance means a willingness to shy away from hurtful sin in action)
These are just a few passages showing “terrorism” and overt violence is against true Christian living. In fact, it excludes the unrepentant sinner if they keep on using overt violence/evil.
These are just a few. I skipped many others for brevity.
Proof beyond a “reasonable doubt” that terrorism in the Islamic context cannot be Christian in action.
I challenge you to do this for the religion founded by the polygamist camel driver who had sex with a 9 year old.
Must have been pretty slow at the DQ, eh?
Your acres of gibberish prove only that you can waste a lot of time quoting passages from a work of fiction. They hold no more veracity than a series of quotes from Douglas Adams or Ed Abbey, or any other writer of imaginative fiction. And they didn’t copy anyone else, whereas your prophets copied the work of earlier and contemporary religions and cultures.
You challenge will go unanswered as I am not a member nor advocate of any religion. But I believe Pat provided you with a response a while back and you were dismissive of that, proving once again your selective way of determining “true” religion.
“I skipped many others for brevity”, “Proof beyond a “reasonable doubt” “. Hilarious ! You should be writing for Saturday Night Live !
The Bible has way more veracity on what Christian living looks like than what either you, or Pat imply.
Pat will not even define “Christian terrorist”.
At least I did you the courtesy of defining what Christianity looks like in living action….no where in there do terrorist acts fit.
In Islam, terrorist acts are praised, extolled, and rewarded.
All the quotes below are your words. Do you see any contradiction, especially between the first two? How can you be encouraging our invasion of a sovereign country in the name of christianity, yet say the crusaders weren’t christian enough (in your opinion) ? Great proof of your selective christianity.
“defeat the enemy on their turf”.
In case you feel your crusade examples were “leaders” in Christian faith in any context”
“which has clear prohibition against harming others”
“Pat will not even define “Christian terrorist”.”
Again Kevin, I don’t need to define it. my standard of common sense is all that’s needed to qualify me.
If you don’t take those quotes out of context and read all that I have written…
If you have an enemy that is dedicated to “convert to Islam or die”, self defense is perfectly acceptable. Bible instructs you should provide for your family, that includes protection and defense from those that would harm you.
Radical Islam will not change. We can sit by and be killed, like we have seen last month in Paris and California, or we can be proactive about dealing with the evil: ISIS.
Letting innocent peope die because of weakness in dealing with evil is not biblical.
You will not define it because it does not exist.
Unfortunately, I have read all that you wrote. Several minutes of my life wasted. And the context of your quotes really doesn’t make much difference. Everything comes from The Book of Excuses, and you have the only copy . You have double standards on just about all that you comment on. kevin is all-knowing, the rest of us mere mortals know nothing. Your hubris is astounding.
I thought we agreed you would not be judgmental. You took special pride in not being judgmental of others. I hate seeing you throw your moral relativism and non-judgmentalism completely out the window with that last comment.
Is my worldview too much diversity for you to handle?
You will not define it because it does not exist.”
Sorry Kevin, I don’t need to define it. my standard of common sense is all that’s needed to qualify me.
In case you haven’t noticed, your worldview is far from diverse. A quick perusal of your past comments would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that diversity is your enemy.
You say the pope isn’t a christian, yet call me judgmental. Add hypocrisy to your hubris.
If it’s common sense than you should have no problem defining it. I have no problem defining Islamic terorism.
Yes, but isn’t it judgmental of you to indicate someone’s worldview is not “diverse”. that would be a micro-aggression in the liberal lexicon.
I would take exception to your judgmentalism anyway. My world view includes this life and the eternal. Your godless world view is very exclusionary, and non-diverse, when it comes to the eternal. You are only concerned about life here on earth.
If the pope does, indeed, reject the doctrine of hell, and embraces evolution, he is not Christian.
If you reject eternal punishment for sin and how sin entered the world, why do you need Jesus to redeem you? (The basic point of Christianity. without that, your “christianity” is just a social gathering by the lost.)
If you reject the need for Christ’s redemtion, you are not Christian. Simple as that.
I’m hoping the Pope was just pandering on those 2 topics and he really embraces the gospel, but it is still not good that he not truthful to the sheep in his church about those 2 topics. Sin came into the world near creation at The Fall in Genesis 3 and Jesus said hell does exist in many instances, and it is reserved for those that reject him.
The pope thinks he is a christian, as do you. You think you have the truth on your side, as does the pope. But the pope has millions that agree with him, and was elected by a congress of his peers, all of whom believe they are christian. What is your support base? Why are they wrong, and you right? be specific, show proof, citations.
Accusing the pope of pandering is pretty judgmental, wouldn’t you say? How is that addressed in The Book of Excuses?
And at the end of the day your carcass and mine will be in the same place. And you can’t prove anything beyond that.
Would you like me to quote the gospel passages as my support?
When I do, you usually say something derogatory/dismissive toward the gospel and ignore it.
I’ll do it, if you are really serious.
Also, I prefer the term “discerning” when it comes to evaluating statements or teachins contrary to the gospel.
Biblical discernment, by being in the Word constantly is essential for any Christian to determine whether Christian leaders are preaching the truth or falsehood.
Without biblical discernment, the blind would be leading the blind when it comes to false teaching like evolution.
“If it’s common sense than you should have no problem defining it. I have no problem defining Islamic terorism.”
Kevin, I don’t need to define it. My standard of common sense is all that’s needed to qualify me.
Great. Then I’m going to use the term “climate terrorists” to describe what went on in Paris at global warming cabal.
I can at least make a case for that.
“Great. Then I’m going to use the term “climate terrorists” to describe what went on in Paris at global warming cabal.”
Ok, that’s fine with me.
My common sense allows me the freedom to understand what a Christian is by there words and actions. I don’t need to define. You are not a Christian. You may claim you are, but my common sense allows me to know differently base on your words and actions. This same common sense allows me to understand when a Christian commits a terrorist act that they are a Christian terrorist.
You can quote whatever bible passage you want. So can the pope. And I can counter with something from Douglas Adams or George Carlin to throw some clarity into the mix. But none of them dive into the realm of fact. I don’t ignore the bible any more than I ignore any other work of fiction. It’s out there, folks read it, big deal. But for someone to selectively interpret, or “discern” their own set of facts from it is really sad. Why don’t you think for your self rather than rely on somebody else ?
“All of us are born ignorant. But a man must work to remain stupid”. Franklin. That goes along with your comment on evolution. I’ll ask again, how do you select a MD for your kids ? All of them have had enough biology and anatomy to know that evolution took place. Or is that another moment for discernment?
So no one is allowed to challenge kevin and his nonsense? I am not anti-christian. I am anti-totalitarian. kevin claims the pope isn’t christian, so how is that not anti-christian hate speech?
Perhaps in the course of discussion me, kevin or other readers would be able to learn something new. If all they are allowed to read is kevin’s own version of christianity then no one is well served. A sad day for enlightenment. 1984 here we come.
Bullying Kevin? Anti-Christian hate speech? Really?
And with that, Kevin’s status as ‘The Retarded Little Brother of B&S’ becomes official.
“You can quote whatever bible passage you want. So can the pope.”
If it’s a passage quoting/justifying evolution or denying hell’s existence, the Pope will come up short on that front. I did not say Pope was not Christian, however, IF he buys into evolution and denies the doctrine of hell, which his statements indicate, then that would deny Christ’s redemption from sin. Denying Christ’s redemption does not make you Christian.
I personally, find it hard to believe the Pope would actually embrace such a thing, other than to pander to a liberal crowd, clamoring to embrace both ideas at great peril. If that is what he is doing (because he really does believe in Creation and the existence of hell) that is also a huge problem for someone, as a Christian leader, that is supposed to present the gospel in it’s truth.
I select an MD based on faith. I have a child with a chronic medical condition, and I guess you would be surprised to learn there are Doctors at Milwaukee Children’s Hospital with great Christian faith. Personally, a job healing and dealing with sick children….one cannot survive, and thrive, spiritually without tremendous Christian faith. The faith of the doctors there is one of the reasons we spend time raising money for Children’s Hospital. My wife and kids even made superhero pillow cases for the kids at the hospital as a “thank you” to the doctors on staff.
So I will discern that Milwaukee Children’s Hospital has tremendous care for the physical body and the spirit. That gives sick kids hope, for this life, and the next.
I’m curious, you would want sick children, some who may not have long to live, to have a doctor that has no hope for eternity through Christ? You would want a doctor to have and tell dying children your wordview…this is all there is, and you just got the short end of the evolution stick?
Hardly seems like a “fair” position.
That is the kind of doctor you would strive for?
I get it
Now as a means of clarification , why do you continue to allow the user of the most foul of obscenities under different user names including mine to attack board members
Your site , your rules ?
Again, I get it – but in that case , I don’t !
That was not a comment from the real Jed. That was our sockpuppet troll doing his trolling. I try to catch his comments and delete them quickly, but I’m not always at my computer.
I think I am on the board every few days , I don’t remember the first warning .If it came and I missed it, I apologize
I would have had a discussion with you about it then .
If it never came then this is the first time I heard of it .
I am always respectful of Kevin ( I defended him when I think he is on point as he is about the fundamentalist followers of Islam and said the military and business comments were way out of line )
I asked him questions about his business regarding the minimum wage because I was generally interested . I know he is a good dad .
My statements are never anti Chistian , they question the value of all religions as they shape our discourse.
If you want to take that topic off the board , so be it
He got me on that one .
I do like the site and I do like Kevin’s ice cream
The pope has made comments regarding evolution and climate change that put him squarely in the 21st century. Therefore by your selective discernment you classify him as a non-christian. Make sure you put that on your website/campaign poster next time you run for office. Everybody deserves to know what a candidate stands for, even the folks in Kewaskum.
As far as our selection of an MD (our daughter had some serious medical issues as a new born and needed extensive surgery), I wanted the best MD available. We didn’t care if he was muslim, jewish, your brand of christian, or martian. But we didn’t want someone that flunked genetics, anatomy or Biology 101 as would an MD that didn’t understand evolution vs creation.
I’ll probably get banned for standing up to your totalitarian world view, but that is the American way. You should try it….
Hey, if you want to ignore the spiritual condition if your doc., that’s great. Some of us consider that important in selection process.
If any Roman Catholic wants to stop by and talk to me about the Pope’s non biblical stands on evolution and hell, I would be happy to discuss it. I’d enjoy it if someone can offer me hope that what he is doing is not contrary to the gospel on those 2 issues. I will even treat a large soda. I want to believe he is a Christian.