US Army teaches hatred of Islam...

You are correct, Rapunzel.

Islam is a very hateful religion.

They also have a very primitive view of the role of women.

Muslims are nothing more that 7th century misfits who believe in the religious teachings of an admitted pedophile! It is a well established fact Mohammed’s second “bride”, Aisha was only nine years old wen she was forced to marry him!

"The Quran allows mature men to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

Dear Muslim missionary, this Quranic permission may be one of the strongest reasons why I do not convert. The true God would not allow this. I have read the "explanations" of Muslim polemicists, but they do not convince me. Muhammad’s example speaks louder than their arguments, and he had sex with a nine-year-old girl.

Sura 65:1 and 4 says:

1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

This hadith says that Aisha was only six when she was betrothed:

. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari; see the parallel hadith here, here, here, and also look at no. 3311)"

Reliable source: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/why_no_conversion.htm

 

your god is more evil then any muslim

 

why you gotta be dragging Obama into this?

 

Have you ever read the Jewish Babylonian Talmud? It was written for Jews by Jews. It has numerous rules specifying how to engage in pedophilia. One of the rules is to count the number of pubic hairs. http://www.come-and-hear.com/nazir/nazir_42.html

Jewish girls could get married before age six. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10888-mi-un
If the marriage was contracted for the girl before she had reached the age of six, or after that agewithout her consent, the formality of mi'un was not necessary. If the marriage took place with her consent when she was between the ages of six and ten, mi'un was necessary if she showed signs of intelligence and of appreciation of the symbols of marriage. After ten, mi'un was necessary even if the girl manifested no signs of intelligence (Yeb. 107b; Giṭ. 65a; "Yad," l.c. xi. 7; Eben ha-'Ezer, 155, 2). Since mi'un was regarded as an annulment of marriage, and not merely as a separation, like divorce, the girl might afterward marry any of the relatives of her presumptive husband, and he any of her relatives. She might marry a kohen, or might remarry her previous husband, even though she had been married to another after mi'un (Yeb. 108a; "Yad," l.c. xi. 16, 17; Eben ha-'Ezer, 155, 10; see Divorce).

That might explain the passage from Judges 21:10-12 in which the Jews go on a killing spree looking for virgins = So they sent ten thousand of the most valiant men, and commanded them, saying: Go and put the inhabitants of Jabes Galaad to the sword, with their wives and their children. And this is what you shall observe: Every male, and all women that have known men, you shall kill, but the virgins you shall save. And there were found of Jabes Galaad four hundred virgins, that had not known the bed of a man, and they brought them to the camp Silo, into the land of Chanaan.

Those virgins were probably less than 6 years old.

 

becase no 1 is and your just screwing around?

 

The military's job is to protect the country not be politically correct. People who think like you are entirely too sensitive about everything. It's more important to you for the military to be sensitive than efficient. You're essentially going to Ozzfest and complaining that Sarah McLachlan isn't on the bill. If you believe in sensitivity, that's great. But take it somewhere else. The military is not the place for that.

 

Can't agree with you there. One of the things we were told is that we are "ambassadors" of the US. Chances are that most people in these (*)(*)(*)(*) hole countries only contact with Americans will be with US soldiers (or whatever service). We form their impression of us. Of course that is also something that happens because we stay in countries. If we just went over there, killed the enemy and took control, it wouldn't be such an issue. As is though we're basically aiding/occupying places, so we're talking long term situation. It's good to be sensible in the situation we're in, though also suspicious of everyone around you since it's obvious the enemy is doing what it can to infiltrate and harm.

In any case I've seen this thread a few times and gone into it a bit, but I'm not sure what exactly to think. I'm curious how much the class in question was taken out of context and what exactly it was. I doubt that we are training new officers that Islam is evil; I just don't see that happening. It's possible to be sure, but from my experience I doubt it. If such a class did exist, it's likely it was something that fell through the cracks. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Such a course just seems out of place, especially with how much that ambassador message was passed through to us and given our lengths to train to the culture of the place we're going.

 

Sure you did.

 

I have to say I'm doubtful as well. Certainly not something that has happened since 9/11 though maybe back around Vietnam when racism was more prevalent.

 

how is killing every one in mecca sending billlions of peapole muslim and non muslim to kill me going to make me more safe? id want you dead if you werr a muderer or supoted murder

 

he thinks he's god.

 

no probably not after that kind of breack dow ther would have been a move to replace him with the vice president

 

You conveniently forget that British soldiers are fighting alongside yours in Afghanistan, thus anything which your moronic generals teach which might get them killed by pissing off the Taliban, absolutely affects my countrymen.

As for empires; they're never 'great'. They might be big but that's not quite the same thing. That's why there aren't any.

 

As usual you display a woeful ignorance of your own country. Here, allow a foreigner to educate you-as usual: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Support_PolPot_RS.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/03/opinion/l-us-aid-for-khmer-rouge-is-repugnant-569990.html

Uncomfortable truths? You sold arms to Iran in spite of a global embargo, lied about it, tried to cover it up and in the process Reagan created a global scandal and you call that knowing what you were doing? What a joke! America is like a clueless teenager, stumbling around in a haze of idiotic decision-making. No wonder America has become an international laughing stock and standing joke.

 

Wow, this is bad alright.

How do you propose we hold the commander-in-chief accountable for this outrage?

 

Well, if you can show us that Obama has been furnished with, and is familiar with, every piece of military and civilian legislation, college class and school curriculum, then we can talk. As it stands whoever was responsible for this nasty piece of xenophobic rabble-rousing needs to be as far away from normal people as possible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

 

He is commander-in-chief. It happened on his watch, and as such he is responsible. But don't worry, I knew you'd want to give him a pass. I know how you liberals roll.

I suppose I should be grateful you didn't blame George W. Bush. Or is that still in the works?

 

Did Obama have knowledge of, or sign-off on this course? Somehow I doubt that if he had this grotesque piece of idiocy would ever have seen the light of day.

 

Please refer to previous reply. You have said nothing that necessitates me changing it.

Actually, I do need to change something. If Obama is so incompetent that he wasn't aware of such a horrible thing being taught to our armed forces, then clearly he needs to be shown the door this November.

But by all means, keep dancing that jig if it amuses you. I have to admit, I do kinda find it amusing myself.

Carry on.

 

The Two-Step is your speciality, so I'll just let you get on with it whilst noting that you have absolutely no response to my question. Carry on...
If Obama authorized that course then the responsibility lies with him. If he didn't, it lies with whoever did. Even a conservative should be able to get his head around something that simple.

 

Ah, I see. So you went to the Jon Corzine school of management, where the CEO isn't responsible for anything that happens under his watch, right? Do you believe in any kind of accountability whatsoever for anyone with a (D) behind their name?

Didn't think so.

 

it's sad that some use positions of power try to proselytize others by preaching hate, it's UnAmerican and it is wrong

 

that is BS, that is like saying 911 happened under Bush so it's his fault, now if Bush knew definitively about the plans of the enemy and did nothing, that is one thing, but that is not the case imo

if a employee embezzles money from the company, the employee is guilty, not the CEO (assuming he knew nothing of it)

 

They can hate us but we cannot reciprocate?

Where do you get this foolishness?

 

Bwahahahaha!!!! Sure you did.



-