The Student Room Group

Muslim doctor calls killing homosexuals "compassionate"

Scroll to see replies

You never know. This could have been on facebook or something and then passed on to the news.
Original post by Attempt
Anyone. And this is coming from the heart.


Anyone, whose even spent as little as an hour researching 9/11 would know for a fact that those buildings were controlled demolition.


I didn't really make a point... it was a joke. never mind let's leave it.


Original post by Attempt
I never said that only Christian Immigrants were allowed,


I know you didn't but how does that make one a Muslim and not a Christian is what I was trying to establish

Original post by Attempt
What I did say was how nobody finds it suspicious how he allowed a 97% Islamic immigration,


I'm sure many people find this suspicious. But this is irrelevant, regardless of one's views on immigration, this does not make Obama a Muslim. With that criteria, Angela Merkel would be a Muslim ... and Jewish rabbis, and the Church of England and the Christian socialist party... and Tony Blair.


Original post by Attempt
has an islamic lineage


I forgot Islam was hereditary and there was an "Islam gene"... Many people turned from Islam to Jesus and vice versa.

Original post by Attempt
and also never raised awareness to how Soldiers in Afghanistan were instructed to burn their Bibles as not to upset the muslims there,


I don't approve of this, but I want to point out that Lord Herbert Kitchener stopped Christian missionaries in Egypt from converting Muslims to Christianity - mainly because he felt there was no need (not to mention, counterproductive) to upset the locals... he wasn't a Muslim

Original post by Attempt
but called a conference and made a speech calling the act of burning a Qur'an which was done by a pastor in 2011, as "disgraceful"


So has every person who identifies with what is called a "regressive"... still not a Muslim.



Again, irrelevant. Regardless of what your views on immigration are, this does not make him a Muslim...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AJ KO
Religion is not race; it's not hereditary, thus 'lineage' is irrelevant.

Even if it is relevant, why is it only relevant for his grandfather, not his mother (or grandmother, etc)? :rolleyes:


I never said Religion was a race, so stop with the smears.

All I'm saying is that His grandfather was a devout muslim, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to show me that he is in fact a Christian.

I also like how you kept quiet on the Migration issue, don't argue about stuff you have no clue on mate.
Reply 463
Original post by Attempt
I never said Religion was a race, so stop with the smears.

All I'm saying is that His grandfather was a devout muslim, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to show me that he is in fact a Christian.
As you agree Islam is not a race and is thus not hereditary, how, then is the religion of his grandfather provide evidence of his religion? And why is his grandfather's religion relevant to this end, but not parents' (as both of his parents were atheists)?
Original post by AJ KO
As you agree Islam is not a race and is thus not hereditary, how, then is the religion of his grandfather provide evidence of his religion? Especially as both of his parents were atheists.



I was just listing some of his family members, that are muslim and how there isn't any single credible source that proves to me that he is infact a christian, and his constitutional fallacies and immigration policies suggests that he is anything other than Christian.
Reply 465
Original post by Attempt
I was just listing some of his family members, that are muslim and how there isn't any single credible source that proves to me that he is infact a christian

By "some of his family members" you mean one grandfather, conveniently ignoring the fact both of his parents were atheists. Hmm...


, and his constitutional fallacies and immigration policies suggests that he is anything other than Christian.

Your assertion was that he is a Muslim. You have utterly failed to provide even one iota of evidence capable of withstanding the most facile of scrutiny to support this assertion.
Original post by KimKallstrom
To be fair, this attitude exemplifies perfectly the point that other poster made about you - that your concerns/agenda/cares are not for what's just, what's right, what's charitable or best for humanity or helping out the least fortunate. It's just Arab supremacy. Which is fine; there's nothing wrong with that. The furthering of your own people - especially at the expense of other groups - is the normal and natural position to take for all of history. But don't try to make out like it's anything else. Some altruist cause. Just don't expect non-Arabs to support it as it doesn't make sense for them to.


What are you even talking about? Who mentioned anything about 'arabs'? I was talking about raising my kids in a Christian household..nothing to do with culture. I didn't realise that wanting to raise your kids with Christian values has anything to do with Arab supremacy :dontknow: I see no link between the two :confused:

I don't know what 'causes' you're talking about...
I've given in charity to both Arabs and non Arabs and many other noble causes so I don't know what you're getting at.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AJ KO
By "some of his family members" you mean one grandfather, conveniently ignoring the fact both of his parents were atheists. Hmm...


Your assertion was that he is a Muslim. You have utterly failed to provide even one iota of evidence capable of withstanding the most facile of scrutiny to support this assertion.


The video about him mixing up two incompletely ambiguous terms "Christian" and "Muslim" which you stupidly believe was made by accident even though the two words sound nothing like each other is my strongest evidence of this. The man's life history is scare, we can't really find too much on him, even his country of origin is still widely speculated. Along with the fact that his first public interview after being inducted as president was on an Islamic owned channel. Al Jazera.

You probably didn't even know this.
Reply 468
Original post by Attempt
The video about him mixing up two incompletely ambiguous terms "Christian" and "Muslim" which you stupidly believe was made by accident even though the two words sound nothing like each other is my strongest evidence of this.

That says it all...


even his country of origin is still widely speculated.

Only by Stormfront users.


Along with the fact that his first public interview after being inducted as president was on an Islamic owned channel. Al Jazera.

You probably didn't even know this.

You mean Al-Arabiya... :facepalm:
Original post by AJ KO
That says it all...


Only by Stormfront users.


You mean Al-Arabiya... :facepalm:


Arabiya.

Yes.


You have any reason why the communist did that?
Reply 470
Original post by Attempt

You have any reason why the communist did that?

Because he's a Wahhabi Muslim, obviously. :facepalm2:
Original post by AJ KO
Because he's a Wahhabi Muslim, obviously. :facepalm2:


Starting sentences with 'Because' shows your level of intelligence.


And what does his socialist actions have to do with his religion now?
Original post by Attempt
Arabiya.

Yes.


You have any reason why the communist did that?


'Murica: land of the free, home of the brave...

where centre/centre-right policies are considered communist...
Original post by chemting
'Murica: land of the free, home of the brave...

where centre/centre-right policies are considered communist...


More like, Land of the FEE, and home of the Slave.


Obama, f*ing Nationalised 2 out of the 6 sectors America generally benefit economically from.

Healthcare, and the Car industry (General motors).

And also passed 225 executive orders.
Original post by Attempt
Obama, f*ing Nationalised 2 out of the 6 sectors America generally benefit economically from.

Healthcare, and the Car industry (General motors).


This is really derailing the thread (so sorry mods :sorry:) but how in your opinion is giving free healthcare to those who would struggle to afford it/couldn't afford it at all, a bad thing?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Toughtee
This is really derailing the thread (so sorry mods :sorry:) but how in your opinion is giving free healthcare to those who wouldn't/would struggle to afford it a bad thing?


In theory it's not really a bad thing. If Economically stable countries like Finland, Qatar, Luxembourg and Czech republic decide to socialise healthcare then so be it.

But not countries like America which are $18 Trillion in debt.
Original post by Attempt
More like, Land of the FEE, and home of the Slave.


Wow you've been reading too much America Thinker, Campaign for Liberty and general Tea Party stuff.


Original post by Attempt
Obama, f*ing Nationalised 2 out of the 6 sectors America generally benefit economically from.


I forgot he didn't just nationalise it, he f*ing Nationalised it. He nationalised it so hard that it needs a f*ing N...

After he "nationalised" it, i believe there was a automotive boom and GM is now making profits - so its safe to say Americans are still benefitting from...though that's irrelevant details. Please tell me how this is, in essence, different from Wall Street bailouts (with less restructuring) done by, I'm assuming very patriotic and capitalistic, Georde Bush.

How is healthcare in America nationalised? I mean, there's an awful lot of private insurers for a nationalised system isn't there?
Let's not forget ACA was, in essence, a Republican Party and heritage foundation plan (which was supposed to be a free market alternative to f*ing Nationalised Healthcare)...

Furthermore, nationalisation isn't necessarily communism...

Original post by Attempt
And also passed 225 executive orders.


Any president can pass executive orders. let's not forget the (Republican controlled) blocked Obama so many times, and blocked bills supported by the people. Not very democratic is it?


Edits: mods, sorry for derailing the thread :colondollar:
Inb4 my post gets deleted

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chemting
Wow you've been reading too much America Thinker, Campaign for Liberty and general Tea Party stuff.




I forgot he didn't just nationalise it, he f*ing Nationalised it. He nationalised it so hard that it needs a f*ing N...

After he "nationalised" it, i believe there was a automotive boom and GM is now making profits - so its safe to say Americans are still benefitting from...though that's irrelevant details. Please tell me how this is, in essence, different from Wall Street bailouts (with less restructuring) done by, I'm assuming very patriotic and capitalistic, Georde Bush.

How is healthcare in America nationalised? I mean, there's an awful lot of private insurers for a nationalised system isn't there?
Let's not forget ACA was, in essence, a Republican Party and heritage foundation plan (which was supposed to be a free market alternative to f*ing Nationalised Healthcare)...

Furthermore, nationalisation isn't necessarily communism...



Any president can pass executive orders. let's not forget the (Republican controlled) blocked Obama so many times, and blocked bills supported by the people. Not very democratic is it?


Edits: mods, sorry for derailing the thread :colondollar:
Inb4 my post gets deleted

Posted from TSR Mobile


Addressing your first point - No I don't really read any of that garbage, I just listen to a lot of talk radio, read books by intelligent conservatives Michael Savage, Mark Dice, Glenn Beck come to mind.

Second point - LMAO, how are General motors making any revenues? Figures from 2014 and 2015 show that they did infact make over $10 Billion in losses, and this isn't from their own website themselves. And the other is from ABC news

http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2016/feb/earnings/GM-2015-Q4-Chart-Set.pdf

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503957


Third point - About the ACA being a "republican party heritage plan" I'm not saying you may be wrong because, although I do spend most of my time reading politics, i can't say I know it all, could you please show me proof how how obamacare was in any way a republican heritage plan?

Remember , I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not aware of this.

Having the Government take control of sectors of a country is the standard definition of Socialism/Communism and Obama has made sure of this.


Agreed, any president can pass executive orders. But the unconstitutional ones he's passed are what I'm railing about. Like the executive actions against the second amendment and the amnesty given to over 5 million Illegals, which will infact vote for a bigger more socialist government.
Original post by Attempt
In theory it's not really a bad thing. If Economically stable countries like Finland, Qatar, Luxembourg and Czech republic decide to socialise healthcare then so be it.

But not countries like America which are $18 Trillion in debt.


In my opinion, economic problems are no excuse to treat the poor badly, as they'll probably be hit the worst. If a family had a lot of credit card debt, but also had a baby, you don't stop feeding the baby to pay back the debt.
Original post by Attempt
[video="youtube;yP_2YfZmTXc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP_2YfZmTXc[/video]


People read into that far too much. It was a slip of the tongue, that's all.

Quick Reply

Latest